Not that I’m aware of.
But which one is a more serious offense, in your view?
Making disparaging comments about politicians on tv, or fundraising from the White House?
Or…murr-derr?
If the current occupant had any brains at all, he would announce that she is transitioning to his campaign team. That way, she would be out of her federal role, and maintain her basic responsibilities. Then they could spin it that this was the plan all along, no they didn’t bow to any pressures, blah blah blorp-di-blorp fffffffffft. But they’re not that savvy. (She would probably get paid heaps more in that capacity anyway.)
Why are you defending this?
No, seriously - why?
“Hey! Look over there!”
:rolleyes:
Rules #1 and #2 of Tribe Club:
When their side does something wrong, we talk about that.
When our side does something wrong, we talk about the time when their side did something wrong.
You didn’t answer the question. In your opinion, which is the more serious offense?
“No, really! Look over there!”
:rolleyes:
Yup. Still, one suspects that they had it all ready to go given the length and quality of the writing.
I’ve seen one or two of Cipollone’s denial letters, before this.Usually he just gets straight to the point, where the point is in essence, “Get off my lawn.” He’s the legal equivalent of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, he gives two shits about what you want. Unless you’ve got a guy with a gun, he’s just going to ignore every request, throw out some nonsense that makes it clear that he’s stonewalling, and add in a few jabs to make sure that you know that you’re fucked (short of getting a guy with a gun to come execute a warrant against him).
And, given the difficulty of sending armed LEO’s with warrants into the White House, Cipollone is basically correct. They’re all wasting his time. Trump’s protected by the Republican Senate. Cipollone is protected by Executive Privilege and pardon power.
At some point, the Supreme Court is going to order the White House to turn over something that Trump doesn’t want to, and we’re going to get into a real uncomfortable situation. Fundamentally, the will of the Supreme Court is executed through the White House. If the Executive isn’t willing to execute, then that renders everything they decide moot. The only out is impeachment. So again, minus the political will to impeach, Trump and his crew, legally, don’t have to do jack shit ever, period. To the extent that offering legal responses back is even worth doing, it’s just because it’s funny to watch people fighting it like they think the law matters.
It’s basically the same principal that Putin uses. Laws, kindness, reasonableness, etc. are all just handicaps for the person who takes them on and, by extension, that person is an idiot and deserves to have their handicap pointed out to them, be mocked for it, and then taken advantage of because they stick to it.
It’s the power of the troll to defeat the uptight person who needs to loosen their panties and get a life.
Because it was a weak-ass diversionary tactic.
Absolutely correct. It’s important for the bureaucracies to assert their power and to force Trump’s administration to respond to it. Just like it’s important for House committees to request records, documents, and testimony from individuals – make them refuse on the record, and then take it to the courts. Make them refuse to comply with court orders. Over time, it might start to sink in for some people. Or it might not - it might take longer. The point is, if the rule of law is to live, if democracy is to live, people have to manifest their desire to keep it alive.
Actually, I’m glad D’Anconia wrote it because it probably reflects how many conservatives and even less enthusiastic Trump supporters feel. A lot of people assume that all of this is just politics, that it’s just what politicians do. And in a sense, yes, it is. But the sheer scale of it all, whether it’s Conway using public office to throw herself into political contests or whether it’s Trump himself denying what cameras and mics clearly caught him saying, is breathtaking.
This application of the Hatch Act is not only absurd but IMHO is a violation of the First Amendment. Sure we can prohibit fundraising and political patronage, but it seems silly that a president can say something from the Oval Office or from the White House lawn, but if his or her spokesperson, you know, the person whose job it is to speak on behalf of the president, says exactly the same thing it is illegal.
Such a reading of the law is simply silly, has been supposedly violated by Democratic and Republican administrations throughout the years, serves no valid purpose, and is likely unconstitutional. So color me not outraged, even when the Obama administration did it.
Is there an application of the Hatch Act which isn’t a “violation” of the First Amendment? I do believe that it is entirely a restriction on ones right to make political statements. There is no other application. So if, in your mind, this application is in conflict with the First Amendment, then the Hatch Act itself is simply unconstitutional.
Obviously, I could write an explanation of why I believe it is Constitutional, but I don’t really need to because there are people who do that for our country, called the Justices of the Supreme Court. Likely, someone has posed them the question, so let’s Google that.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Supreme+Court+opinion+hatch+act+first+amendment
Might I inquire what it says?
Is this the part where I have to explain to a lawyer that people working for the government regularly suffer limitations in their right to free speech when working in their official capacity?
This is exactly the kind of shit the Hatch Act exists to combat. Not as severe as the original impetus, but absolutely the same kind of offense.
You do know that your claim here runs directly contrary to the law as stated and the jurisprudence of multiple SCOTUS cases, right?
I cannot help but repeat my previous statement to D’Anconia (as of yet unanswered): Why are you defending this? No, seriously - why?
Jdging by the number of people I see violating traffic laws every day, by the number I know commit tax fraud every year, by the number of businesses that violate wage and labor laws and nothing is done, etc., coupled with what we see our government leaders doing currently & the message that sends to average Americans… I’d say Americans don’t really like the rule of law. It’s inconvenient.
Which Obama officials contravened the Hatch Act?
Maybe Republicans should do the right thing instead of looking for excuses to do the wrong thing.
I’m not familiar with the sourcebut here are two:
Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro
According to the article, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was also being investigated until she resigned.
Don’t take my reply as having any opinion in the matter. This issue does not raise the needle on my give a shit meter.
Just for the benefit of anyone who doesn’t like clicking links - for whatever reason - I looked it up. Here’s what I found (from the wiki):
.