Slashdot Mirror
FCC Commissioner Broke the Law By Advocating for Trump, Officials Find (theverge.com)
A newly released letter from government officials finds that Republican FCC commissioner Michael O'Reilly broke a federal law preventing officials from advocating for political candidates when he told a crowd that one way to avoid policy changes was to "make sure that President Trump gets reelected." The Verge reports: After he made the comments, the watchdog group American Oversight filed a letter with the Office of Special Counsel, which handles Hatch Act complaints. In response to the group's letter, the Office of Special Counsel said today that O'Rielly did, in fact, violate the Hatch Act. The letter said O'Rielly responded that he was only trying to provide an explanatory answer to how those changes in policy could be stopped, but the office rejected that reasoning. The office said it has sent a warning letter to O'Rielly this time, but will consider other infractions "a willful and knowing violation of the law" that could lead to legal action.
legalize and such
I suspect everyone breaks one law or another every day and doesn't know it.
Ok, all SJW's whine along with me - "Faaaaascist!!".
He should have said it in a Free Speech Zone.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
This is bizarre. I wonder if anyone involved in this has READ the Hatch Act.
The Hatch Act doesn't apply to all federal employees. One group the Hatch Act says it does NOT apply to is:
--
an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
--
The FCC commissioners are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Their job is to determine policies to pursued in the nationwide administration of Federal laws related to communications.
His job description is PRECISELY that which the Hatch Act, by its own terms, does not apply to.
It would make no sense to say that those senior officials who make political decisions, such the the Secretary of State and the FCC commissioners, aren't allowed to talk about politics. Net neutrality etc are essentially political issues, and it's the commissioner's job. Of course he's going to take a political stand! That's his job, deciding policy.
The Hatch Act restricts certain political activities of federal executive branch employees, except for the President and the Vice President. 5 U.S.C. 7321-7326.
?
Both of these points are applicable to the statement O'Reilly made. Funny how the office tasked with enforcing the Act would know more about it than a random Slashdotter, eh?
We'll it's a good thing Trump hasn't broken any laws himself yet.
right-wingers will do or say anything to protect their "tribe"
Funny how the office tasked with enforcing the Act would know more about it than a random Slashdotter, eh?
Which office in particular? Name the person laying the official condemnation.
Right now we are, as usual, arguing about political clickbait. The facts are "government officials" according to the summary, Office of Special Counsel according to Verge, naming no names, and their source "American Oversight" has no source at all. Their claimed source is a letter to the director of American Oversight and has no legal standing whatsoever.
We are arguing about a supposed warning letter sent to a person by another person(s) whom have not identified themselves, being claimed by another person that has no authenticated first-source, described by a third party, summarized by a fourth, and analyzed to death for moral condemnation or deflection based on political affiliation or armchair-laywering here on slashdot.
What a tempest in a port-a-potty.
This is bizarre. I wonder if anyone involved in this has READ the Hatch Act.
Yes, they probably even read further than the Wikipedia entry!
I'm definitely not an expert but was curious so I checked a few sources on the matter.
As near as I can tell only the POTUS and VP are completely exempt from the law. The provisions you pointed out don't mean that positions subject to Senate confirmation are exempt from the entire act, just portions of it.
Here I don't think the problem was that he was an FCC commissioner appearing at CPAC (though I think that breaks the spirit of the law). But that speaking as an FCC commissioner he advocated for Trump's candidacy.
If he had been appearing at CPAC just as himself he'd probably be fine.
I stole this Sig
It is likely that the Office of the Special Counsel has a better handle on the Hatch Act and the relevant case history than raymorris does
> 5 U.S.C. 7321-7326
They mention those six, let's step through them one-for-one and see. Below I will quote the statue and then comment on each.
7321
It is the policy of the Congress that employees should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation.
--
7321 says generally he, and all others, should be allowed to talk about politics.
7322 definitions, nothing interesting
7323
a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee MAY take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may notâ"
(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;
(2) knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person, unless [There is a labor union involved]
[Here's subsection (B), which is the "except" above:
b)
(1) An employee of the Federal Election Commission (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate) [which he is] may not request or receive from, or give to, an employee, a Member of Congress, or an officer of a uniformed service a political contribution.
(2)
(A) No employee described under subparagraph (B) [list of agencies which does NOT include the FCC] (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.
(B) The provisions of subparagraph (A) shall apply toâ"
(i) an employee ofâ" (list of federal agencies)
--
So far he's doubly exempt - he's appointed by the President AND he doesn't work for any of the listed agencies.
7323 continued
3) No employee of the Criminal Division or National Security Division of the Department of Justice (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.
(c) An employee retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates.
--
(C) might be worth reading twice. Even employees covered by the Hatch Act are allowed to express their opinion on political subjects and candidates. They are not allowed to run political campaigns.
7324 might be easier to read backward. It says what's not allowed, then lists several circumstances under which it IS allowed, including by a person appointed by the President, such as an FCC commissioner:
(2) in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof;
(3) while wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying the office or position of the employee; or
(4) using any vehicle owned or leased by the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof.
(b)
(1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an employeeâ"
(A) the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post; and
(B) who isâ"
(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
--
The last bit may be confusing, b
I still can't believe the Left thinks that racism serves as a rebuttal when it's completely orthogonal to logic and simply shows you to be the miserable wretched racist you are. But then again, the leftists have always been racist, from founding the KKK to oppose the Republican abolitionists to running the National Socialist party and killing other socialists for not being the right sort of socialists and then complaining that if only they'd gone further left, everything would've been just great. Oh well, you changed from hating the Jews to hating the 1%, I'm sure nobody will ever notice the resemblance in terms of forcibly dispossessing a rich segment of the population and distributing their goods. So when they go around murdering people you can always take comfort in the fact that it was done for a "good reason"!
You quoted the first half of 7324, subsection A. Read the rest of it, subsection B.
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
[That's an FCC commissioner]
may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.
Subsection (a) is what you quoted. But subsection (B) says appointed people CAN do those things, as long as they don't spend government money doing it.
Everyone talks about "change". Nobody wants change for change sake. What we want is improvement. Even on volatile topics like pro-choice/life there is middleground that gets left off the table because it doesn't invoke an emotional response in their demographic ... making adoption easier comes to mind. ... or it could mean whats left in our pockets after taxes.
Stop talking about "change", its meaningless since it can be good or bad
If you want to know what the Hatch Act says, the Act itself is probably shorter than that Comey article. You can see for yourself exactly what it says, with no worry that the reporter is spinning it.
I copy/pasted the Act above, here:
https://politics.slashdot.org/...
That's copy / pasted from:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Through
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Perhaps the most interesting bit is 7324 subsection (B).
It says that people who are always on duty, because they are appointed officials rather than 9-5 employees, still have their first amendment rights. They can voice their political opinions just like everyone else, and the "not while on duty" rule doesn't apply to them since they are on duty 24/7.
And let's string up Kathleen Sebelius for Hatch Act violations as well, and also President Obama for refusing to do his duty and allow Sebelius to be prosecuted for her Hatch violation!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Uhm, I copied/pasted and commented on ALL of the sections and of the entire Act.
Are you trying to say the entire Act only applies to FEC employees, are or you just really, really stoned?
They have their high-profile appointees stay silent, but they funnel grants to "community service" organizations that are entirely unencumbered and can be as political as they like.
[cite?]
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I just happened across that very same quote from LBJ yesterday (in a completely different context). And I thought to myself, "...and the GOP/Trump are still profiting from this advice today."
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Dude, Kellyanne Conway alone has as many Hatch Act violations as the whole eight years of the Obama administration!
The current administration has taken graft and corruption to heights unheard of in the First World. Please, continue to blame Obama for all your problems, though.
dom
Lock him up!
Lock him up!
Lock him up!
What?... you guys seemed to like that chant before. What changed? ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
As eluded to in the article you linked, the problem for Sebelius was using tax payer money, under 7324. That's why she paid the money back from political funds.
7323(a) is limited by 7323(c), and the First Amendment.
Appointed policy makers (which are political positions by nature) can, like everyone else, state their political opinions. 7323(c) states that clearly, in case there was any confusion. 7323(a) says they can't use their OFFICIAL AUTHORITY to affect an election, such as by ordering government resources, employees or money, be used to advance a political campaign. It does NOT say they can't state their opinions. Subsection (c) makes it very clear they can state their opinions.
That's if it wasn't obvious - politics is arguing about policy (politics and policy are from the same root word), so obviously policy makers are going to talk about politics - that's their job.
Overreacting much? Kinda snowflakey....
One innocuous sentence was picked out and blown into a gale of tornado-like proportions. So no, it's not _me_ who is overreacting.
Also, it's a bit of a shame that apparently discussions must now _always_ include a personal insult. It's the same thing, though, isn't it? Zero respect for other points of view, only total war on those who disagree with you. Give no quarter. And scream for mercy when they finally come for you...
Thanks for that. I hadn't read the OSC letter. So the theory is using official authority to influence the outcome of an election.
I'm not sure which election they are referring to. Given subsection (c), which explicitly states they CAN state their political opinions, I'm not too sure his statement was an unlawful "use of official authority" either, it sounded more like stating an opinion to me.
To think, of all those millions of federal employees, over all the years the US has been a nation, and here is the _very first_ one to talk about politics!
I know right! The Hatch Act is ridiculously simple. It's just two lines:
1) Be a federal government employee
2) Don't talk politics.
Everyone has broken it. .... Oooooorrrr maybe you have no idea what you're talking about. Let me check.
I just checked. Apparently the Hatch Act is more than 2 lines, so I guess the real answer is you probably don't know what you're talking about.
Trump is actually the cleanest and the most honest of the bunch.
This is weaponized stupidity.
"Old man yells at systemd"
When Clinton runs a private email server it's the crime of the century, when one of Trump's friends illegal supports him or pays off a porn star on his behalf it's just a witch hunt.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I couldn't help but think
You really do need to be helped with thinking if that line of tripe is what runs through your head. From the legendary Adams/Jefferson shitposting, to Kennedy fucking anything with a single feminine leg, to LBJ whipping his dick out at every opportunity, to Clinton molesting a White House intern under color of authority of the highest office in the land...
And now you care about muh diginity of the office.
Fuck, if anything, Trump is a return to normalcy where the Office of the President is concerned.
Quite a few federal officials are taking political sides against the ethics of their office. Side X doing it doesn't excuse side Y doing it. However, it does make the calls to enforce such laws somewhere between hypocrisy and tyranny if they are only applied when an official goes one way but not the other.
The series of incidents are well known and all controversial indifferent to who said what when. I won't bother going through them because whatever I say will be gainsaid by a member of which ever tribe.
For real unity here... for real ethical clarity and purity... these laws have been applied evenly. You can't throw the book at one person for doing it and then say "it was an honest mistake" when someone from the other tribe did it.
Even handed or the entire principle becomes a crass and tyrannical pretext to power and nothing more.
I think too often people look at this sort of thing and think it can't get worse. That stability cannot tip over some point where instead of trending towards stability we will trend towards instability.
Those that welcome such events should consider that what real instability looks like... look around the world at countries that come unraveled. The horror and death.
Such as the wages of corruption. Such is the price of not having integrity. By all means... Burn the FCC official you don't like because he rolled back Net Neutrality and of course was appointed by Trump who is the second coming of Hitler/Satan. Whatever you hyperbolic scree.
Do it.
But when you do it, set a principle and a precedent. Make your bed because you will lie in it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
To think, of all those millions of federal employees, over all the years the US has been a nation, and here is the _very first_ one
Where did it say that?
The miscreant! The crook! Hang him! Destroy his career, burn his house, harass his family!
Or what actually happened was that a complaint was made because a law may have been broken and that was investigated with only a warning issued. But carry on with the Fox News narrative if that makes you feel better. Maintain the anger! We're always angry at everything!
Because when _some people_ lose the election,
Oh right, you're one of those people that treat politics as team sport and your team is the best one, and everything bad is the other team's fault. Good luck with that...
Find a conservative who doesn't break the law. That will be news!
What? Sorry, the noise of the "sanctuary city" around me drowned out what you were saying. What was that again?
Every Democrat that supports open borders and illegal aliens breaks the law, so that's all of them.
No one had a problem with Clinton running her own email server. The problem was using that private server for government business, which is probably illegal. Then refusing to give the state department emails relating to her position as secretary of state, which was also probably illegal. And finally using a personal email server to send and receive classified government documents, which was most certainly illegal.
The sad part about all this is that it isn't even complicated. If you sent confidential work related emails through your private email account your boss would not be happy. And if you refused to hand over those emails after you left the company, you should expect to get sued. This is basic stuff that every white collar worker deals with.
Wrong. Here is an easy to understand breakdown from an actual US law firm. https://hkm.com/federal-employ... Notice the "What is Prohibited Under the Hatch Act?" section and this bullet point "Use their official authority to encourage or discourage the political activities of others". That site is run by lawyers trying to defend violators, so they have the details down correctly because that's how they make money.
"I don't expect much out of the media when it comes to law. For example, how much has been said about the new defamation lawsuit by Stormy Daniels?"
There are over 2 million results to a Google search on the term "stormy daniels defamation suit". The lead results include links to stored by CNN and NBCNews, and the results also include sources, from the top of the list down, cnbc, nypost, thehill, washingtonpost, forbes. Page 2 of results finally gets to usatoday, fortune, huffingtonpost, nydailynews.
Seems like you get quite a lot out of the media on this specific topic. Or, to be plainer, assertions that the 'Stormy Daniels Story' isn't being covered broadly or in depth aren't merely misleading, they are outright lies, or perhaps merely the idle spew of someone entirely uninformed about the topic. You should, instead, make better examples of media bias and intention to skew public opinion in its favored direction by pointing out all the examples of reporting on our President's activities, which are largely reported from a singular, derogatory viewpoint.
Either way, your sad attempt at shilling fails. Go dodge some homeless on your way to Starbucks, and avoid eye contact. You are unworthy.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"politicians will do or say anything to protect their "tribe""
FTFY
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
That's funny. Really, that is funny. SO this appointment is invalid when the President leaves office? Or is it that the exemption survives only the appointing President? How is this Commissioner drawing a salary?
Really you made a funny.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Doubtful. Hatch act language is pretty clear. A political appointee is going to be political, while a career employee is supposed to be apolitical. Special counsel is appatently wrong.
I think his intent was that the media is making a big deal out of it, but an actual lawyer says it's basically a joke.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
... at least thatâ(TM)s how it would be if the lame-stream media had its way.
It's illegal for them to attempt to influence the outcome of the 2020 election not to speak on anything political.
That said, why would anyone be seeking rational to protect the FCC commissioners? Unless you are a telco or cable company the FCCs recent actions and policy are very much against you.
You can read it. The special counsel is wrong.
So the Act leaves no room for guessing. It says these officials may engage in political activity, they are not prohibited. Period.
Here's the entire subsection for you. It's really not that hard to read.
So, effectively, (a) applies while (b) does not further restrict him, and (c) allows him to vote and express his opinions, outside of the restrictions set up by (a).
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
What about when the Obama administration use the NEA to advocate for Obama care???
What about sending the IRS after the tea party?
What about using the "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down Rush Limbaugh?
What about how the DoJ employees use 90% of their personal earnings to donate to democrats they are investigating ?
What about Joe Biden telling everyone to vote against Robert Bork -a judicial nominee- because Bork wasn't a democrat?
What about the state department under Obama trading favors with foreign interests for domestic privileges and campaign donations?
This guy tells people he wants Trump re-elected and that is politicizing the federal government ??? What ??
Federal law says incumbents are allowed to campaign on military bases. That's because it was expected when the laws were written that people are going to have political views and they are going to fundraise and they are going to run for office !
By speaking out on a politicized topic is trying to influence an outcome. You cannot divorce one from the other. By saying "Trump is wrong" or "Obama is right" or anything else IS influencing an outcome.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It is free publicity to a washed up, aging porn star. Good for her. Up next, granny porn.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
An outcome is distinct from the specifically prohibited class of outcome, namely an election. The FCC commissioner can try to influence the outcome of many manner of things but is prohibited from influencing the outcome of an election. You can't get much more blatant about manipulating the outcome of an election than saying "you should vote for..."
Find a conservative who doesn't break the law. That will be news!
What? Sorry, the noise of the "sanctuary city" around me drowned out what you were saying. What was that again?
To the contrary, ICE requiring local law enforcement to assist them is what has been ruled unconstitutional.
> FCC commissioners do not qualify for this exemption even if they go through a similar process because they are not a cabinet level position AND they are in charge of an independent agency.
Instead of making stuff up, let's look at the statute again:
5 USC Â 105
Executive agency
For the purpose of this title, âoeExecutive agencyâ means an Executive department, a Government corporation, and an independent establishment.
As you correctly stated, the FCC in an independent establishment, placing it's commissioners under the definition in 105, and therefore 7323.
The operative phrase of (B) is:
may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a)
So (B) is an exception to (a). If (B) applies, (a) does not. In this instance, his position does fall under (B), and he therefore "may do things prohibited by (a)" - (a) does not apply to him.
(C) clarifies that even for people to whom (a) applies, they can also express their political opinions, as he did.
As a matter of wise *policy*, to avoid any *appearance* of coming close to violating the Act, most officials generally avoid expressing political opinions at any time and place they are there as officials. That isn't required by the Act, though. That's a much stricter rule than what the Act requires.
Umm...Planned Parenthood, SEIU, AFL-CIO, just to name a few private organizations that benefit monetarily from policies pushed by Democrats and parley those funds into advocacy campaigns.
More to my point, however, is that the media is happily spilling words on this, you wrote, in part:
"how much has been said about the new defamation lawsuit by Stormy Daniels?"
I attempted to answer that. My interpretation was that you were decrying the volume of media attention. Then you considered the value or validity of the subject, the suit.
I saw two issues.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"Use their official authority to encourage or discourage the political activities of others".
He has no official authority over any of the attendees of the PAC he made the comment to, so there is no use of official authority involved. "Official authority" means that he can order people, either directly or through undue influence, to do something.
The Hatch Act was intended to keep managers of political agencies from ordering, or suggesting, that their employees support certain political causes, or using government money to pay for support for those causes. Government employees cannot be ordered to spend their time on a campaign. They cannot be "suggested" to do so. Yes, this was a problem, and that's why the Hatch Act exists.
If these comments had been made at a meeting of the FCC then there would be some grounds for concern. The comments were made in a forum where nobody had to pay any attention to them, there is no way for anyone to verify whether they did or not, AND there is no way for anyone to actually do what was mentioned.
If O'Reilly said to me, "unless you vote for Trump's reelection, your radio license renewals will all get special scrutiny and probably be denied", THAT would be using his official authority in violation of the Hatch Act. In that limited sense, an FCC commissioner has "official authority" over me. But no such threat was made so even that example is moot.
> For the set of excluded employees under 7324, I think you'd have an uphill climb claiming an FCC commissioner falls under section 7324 (b) (2) (A) "the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post". I don't think a business trip to a convention/meeting/panel discussion qualifies for that clause, although I'll grant you you can try to shoe-horn it in. I'll enjoy seeing how you manage that and exclude all the other career gov employees that regularly travel to conventions etc, effectively rendering the Hatch Act moot except in defined workplaces.
The exemption is for officials appointed by president and confirmed by the Senate, whose duties continue past 5:00. 99.999% of government employees are hired by managers, not appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. THAT is why the exemption doesn't apply to any but a very few - because it says people appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate.
I'm actually surprised that you're arguing a top-level government official, the heads of major agencies, clock out and 5:00 and cease to have any duties after hours. Generally that terminology "duties continue after hours" is used to basically mean salaried people. Hourly people done when they clock out, salaried people are always "in the clock".
but an actual lawyer says it's basically a joke.
Wait, a lawyer said so? Case closed.
The exemption is for a subset of those appointees, not all of them. FCC commissioners are definitely not the same as Sec of State. Nor should they be. Are there *emergency* issues that the FCC needs to resolve or really anything that requires an FCC person to work outside normal hours any more than anyone else?
O'Reilly was subject to 7324 (b) (1) which means that 7324's exemptions do not apply to him in this case. In short, he violated the Hatch Act.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
As shocking as it is, Trump is actually the cleanest and the most honest of the bunch... This is precisely the reason the media is 97% negative on him, and the DC swamp is universally opposed to almost anything he does. Pretty sad how they used the Russia hoax, with zero evidence after 2 years, to completely castrate the people's president.
I see the Russian trolls are out in force today.
Just like how Obama approved Ajit "pile of shit" Pai.
THANKS OBAMA!
That's an interesting take on it. Fyi, the Office of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General disagree with you.
OSP says it's dangerously close to violating 7323 (a)1.
Just to save you the time of looking it up, 7323(a) 1, which the Office of the Counsel pointed to, is using one's official authority to influence an election.
This took place at the Conservative Political Action Conference Maryland. Not at his office in Washington. So by the OSCâ(TM)s complaint, while he's attending a conference in Maryland he's still exercising his official authority, still on duty.
7324 exempts those who are on duty while not at the office. So if you're right, that he's not "on duty while away from the normal duty post", then the Special Counsel is wrong, and he's not guilty of a 7323 violation.
If you want him to be guilty, your best path to get there is to agree with OSP that he is on duty at all times and places, and therefore could have violated 7323. If he was off-duty, not exercising his official authority while stating that opinion, than there is no 7323 violation. Your argument ends up being one his defense would make (if it were sensible).
> > O'Reilly was subject to 7324 (b) (1) which means that 7324
> O'Reilly's statements violate 7323
So you'e changed your mind. Cool. You see they can't violate both, he can't be both on-duty and off-duty at the same time.
Name dropping don't count. Where have you seen Dems funnel grants?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
When have you *not* seen the Dems threaten to scuttle legislation unless it funds Planned Parenthood? When have you *not* seen Dems adopt policies favorable to Big Labor?
Yep, and you're right that's crap. He's explicitly allowed to participate in political activity not being paid for as a part of his official position, and "Hey, vote for my guy" is pretty central political activity. He was at a CPAC conference, not an FCC event. This is just the Office of the Special Counsel trying a power grab. He should tell them if they have a problem with it, let them go to court.
Nah, you were right the first time. It's an independent establishment. But let's assume you were wrong when you said that, and you are right when you now say it's not part of the executive branch at all. I'll assume that's your final answer and you won't change your mind again.
In that case, you might want to look at the Hatch Act again. It says employees within the scope of the Act aren't allowed to do certain things, and defines who those employees are:
5 USC S 7322(1)
(1)âoeemployeeâ means any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office inâ" (A)an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office; or (B)a position within the competitive service which is not in an Executive agency;
"the competitive service" is government jobs you take a test for, jobs where the person is not appointed or elected. FCC commissioners are appointed, so they aren't part of the competitive service. The question, therefore, is are FCC commissioners "employed or holding office in - an Executive agency"?
If they are NOT employed or holding office in an executive agency, the Hatch Act has nothing to do with them whatsoever. You sure you want to stick with that answer?
My logic? You are arguing that he was on duty, and off duty - at the same time.
My friend "X and not X" is always false, for any value of X.
Would you like to decide whether or not you think he was on duty and we can take it from there? That'll determine which section applies, 7423 or 7424.
Still don't see an actual cite. Everyone has an opinion, not everyone has facts.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Oh, my...another American who doesn't even know his own constitution.
Aren't you cute!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Hello, little Russian troll. How's Vladdy keeping these days?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
You don't seem to understand what racism is, or what "leftism" is. No wonder you are so confused if you've got those basic premises wrong and then use those broken definitions to understand the world.
WTF?!?!?!
Throw that MF-er in jail for a LONG time!!!
It is NOT okay to let officials off with warnings with a meager slap on the hand!
IF, and that is a big if, he made a mistake, then he is NOT qualified to hold the position. This is a grievous infraction!
The damage done in incalculable. Punish that creep - HARD!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Well good, we're making progress then. You've decided you agree with me, the Special Counsel, and the Attorney General that the Commissioner's duties don't stop when he leaves office, he was on duty. I'm not sure where you got "travel provided by the FCC", but that doesn't matter at this point. The point to decide now is that unlike an hourly employee who is done working when they leave the premises, as a principal his duties to the taxpayer continue no matter where he goes, right?
No doubt but there being worse types of election manipulation hardly gives the FCC commissioner a pass. Not that they did anything here but say "shame shame."
Look at it another way. As a major public official they get a much louder voice than your typical citizen and that voice is essentially being funded by tax dollars because the existence of their position is funded by tax dollars. This is no different than a charitable non-profit advocating a political candidate, it's a backhanded way of using tax dollars to fund someone's campaign. This isn't something you should support regardless of whether it happens to have been benefitting a political candidate you support or the other guy. This is one of those things which should fall under zero tolerance.
People have propped up far too many hypocritical standards like this, willing to allow bad behavior if it happens to benefit their agenda. Russians manipulating our elections buying facebook ads? Yes that is bad. But if they'd funneled the money through the US arm of Kaspersky into a superpac, perfectly legal thanks to citizens united, they'd have been doing nothing different than all the other nations trying to influence our elections and what many hostile nations did in support of the Clinton campaign and other campaigns. In the same token, that doesn't give Trump a pass.
> at a function paid for by the government including travel
> it's an official function that they went to as a group, so it stands to reason that they're there in official capacity and all travel etc is reimbursed. It's the way the gov functions. No one goes to a gov work function without travel orders
Now what you've been saying makes sense to me.
You think the Conservative Political Action Conference is "an official function" that is "paid for by the government". You think the commissioners "all went there as a group", as a "government work function" based on "travel orders".
Based on those assumptions, a lot of what you said would make sense.
I'm afraid you're mistaken, though, none of those are factually true. CPAC is a private event hosted by American Conservative Union, paid for by donors, not "an official function paid for by the government". They didn't all go there as a group, two conservative commissioners attended.
Your reasoning is something a judge would call "novel". It's perfectly legal to advocate for policy changes, and helping an individual who's here illegally is not the same as being an accomplice. If I were helping someone come into the country illegally, that would doubtless be illegal. Once they're here, that's another thing. Do you want to make it illegal to help someone without first doing a background check?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Democrat raises some good questions in that letter.
I did notice some of the questions are things you've already answered in this thread, for example you've said it was official trip where they all went together, with the government paying for it.
Is it okay to help somebody spend the money after they robbed a bank?
So if employees of the IRS were to deliberately not process applications in a timely fashion for those who oppose the president, at the orders of the president's appointee, that would wrong?
A purely absolutely 100% hypothetical situation which of course hasn't happened lately. Certainly not since the administration of Richard Nixon has the IRS been politicized.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
I'm hardly a criminal defense lawyer, but selling lunch to a bank robber is legal. I don't know what you mean specifically by "spend the money", or what it has to do with the discussion. This is a situation in which you know someone who needs help, and you help that person without regard to background.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes