FCC Commissioner Broke the Law By Advocating for Trump, Officials Find (theverge.com) 324
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.
There are too many laws (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect everyone breaks one law or another every day and doesn't know it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I suspect everyone breaks one law or another every day and doesn't know it.
Yep! Its ridiculous to expect someone to follows the laws that apply specifically to their jobs. As a doctor, its really just too much to expect for me to follow the laws regarding prescribing opioids. Just too many damn laws!
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck is a trump davidian (and is it a compliment?) and what the fuck is contradictory about the two sentences you quoted?
Sorry, I should be more gentle, English may not be your native language.
Re:There are too many laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect everyone breaks one law or another every day and doesn't know it.
Sure... but this is also a law he really shouldn't have broken.
His job is to help administer the FCC, not be a partisan hack speaking at CPAC and pumping Trump's candidacy.
Normal ethical people understand their roles come with a responsibility beyond partisanship and tend to avoid repeatedly violating laws meant to ensure ethical behaviour.
Re:There are too many laws (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect everyone breaks one law or another every day and doesn't know it.
Yes but how many people break laws specifically targeted at them while they occupy an office or position intended as the specific target of the law?
Sure I probably break some laws, but you won't find me for instance breaking the Professional Engineering Act in my country. Likewise I expect someone in the employ of the federal government not to break a law that specifically is intended to apply to federal government employees.
Re: (Score:2)
So, don't be flapping your pie-hole about how you could be sure you wouldn't be violating the Engineering Act, since there may be rules that govern engineers buried in a bill called "Save the Spotted Owl".
And if there were (there are not), then it would be passable. Quite unlike an act that has stood on it's own from inception to passing as well as having multiple amendments applied to it directly and independent from any other bill. A good example of this would be .... drumroll... the Hatch Act.
So, don't be flapping your pie-hole about how you could be sure
Don't go making bullshit excuses precisely 0% relevant to the topic at hand. None of anything you said applies to this case. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read your reply. I award you no points, and
So much for ... (Score:2)
He should have said it in a Free Speech Zone [wikipedia.org].
Laws (Score:3)
We'll it's a good thing Trump hasn't broken any laws himself yet.
Improvement (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop talking about "change", its meaningless since it can be good or bad
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You do not want the government to make adoption easier [time.com], they are already not doing due diligence to make sure adopted children are not sold into slavery, eaten for sunday brunch, or whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone talks about "change". Nobody wants change for change sake.
Are you sure about that? How many people voted for Trump because he would be different from previous presidents, without any regard for whether he would be better or worse?
Re: (Score:2)
How many people voted for Trump because he would be different from previous presidents,
Nobody does that. [justcollecting.com]
Hang him high! (Score:2)
But, but, Obama! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Can you find an actual source, as opposed to CauseOfAction.org and the RWNJ "Deep State" echo chamber?
Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I actually looked at the link. Not only that, I read the linked story... and as soon as I started seeing references to "Deep State" I knew I was wasting my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and yes, I did in fact read the actual OSC report, and found that corrective action had been taken:
OSC concluded that Secretary Sebelius violated the Hatch Act when she made extemporaneous partisan remarks in a speech delivered in her official capacity on February 25, 2012. ...
After the event, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reclassified the trip from official to political and issued a statement to that effect. The Democratic National Committee reimbursed the U.S. Treasury for all costs and expenses associated with her travel to the event. OSC found no evidence that Secretary Sebelius made any other political statements in her official capacity.
I'm satisfied that none of your tax dollars funded partisan political messaging in this case, and that it was made clear the remarks were made by a private individual and did not constitute an official position or policy of HHS. I think the *intent* of the Hatch Act is also thus satisfied.
You're obviously looking for something more--burning at the stake, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
And let's string up Kathleen Sebelius for Hatch Act violations as well [causeofaction.org], and also President Obama for refusing to do his duty and allow Sebelius to be prosecuted for her Hatch violation!
Why not string them all up? I learned that 2 wrongs don't make a right when I was around 4 years old. And you?
LOCK HIM UP! (Score:3, Funny)
Lock him up!
Lock him up!
Lock him up!
What?... you guys seemed to like that chant before. What changed? ;)
Apply that evenly and watch the heads roll... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Who's being hyperbolic here? "Burn the FCC official"? He was found to be violating the law and received a "warning letter". Doesn't sounds like a very effective burning. I get a much worse burning that that for exceeding the speed limit. And of course the guy wasn't appointed by Trump so your whole "I'm being oppressed" screed falls flat on its face. Also, YOU'RE the only one that compared Trump to Hitler or Satan in this thread, great strawman though. I totally agree that the laws should be applied
Illegal 4 Any-1 2 Vote 4 Trump (Score:2)
Somebody doesn't seem to know the law of the posit (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Somebody doesn't seem to know the law of the po (Score:4, Informative)
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.
?
Re:Somebody doesn't seem to know the law of the po (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You can read it. The special counsel is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Well let's step through it section-by-section (Score:3, Informative)
> 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 abou
Re:Well let's step through it section-by-section (Score:5, Informative)
7322 definitions, nothing interesting
I think your problem started with skipping 7322, which defines "employee" in a way that includes Mr. O'Reilly. Exception 7323(2)(A) does not apply because Mr. O'Reilly was not working as a campaign manager. 7324 is not the cited violation, so the exceptions are irrelevant. (The distinction between "official authority" (7323) and "on duty" (7324) is also relevant.)
Thanks for that (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that. I hadn't read the OSC letter. So the theory is using official authority to influence the outcome of an election.
Arguably Official authority is not involved -- the official made an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to participate in a panel discussion. Discussions of this nature are designed to allow participants to share their personal beliefs or ideas on certain matters.
Sharing your opinion on what a way to affect policy is during a candid discussion
Re: (Score:3)
As an FCC Commissioner, isn't he an appointee, not an employee?
Re: (Score:2)
Subsection (c) says they can state political opinions, And the US Constitution makes sure that EVERYONE has the right to state political opinions.
Anyways, removing a FCC commissioner from office or taking other actions to penalize them under 7323 would essentially require congress passes an article of impeachment, and the senate concurs, which is not going to happen over a republican appointee "Suggesting" some people re-elect the president if their object is to maintain the same policies.
Re:Well let's step through it section-by-section (Score:5, Insightful)
Violations of the Hatch Act were common [thehill.com] during the last 8 years, but none of the current ButtHurts got very exercised about it.
This is tribalism in action. Members of the tribe are not held accountable for doing things that those outside the tribe would be held accountable for. Most people do it. The Democrats were mostly fine with Obama essentially continuing Bush's foreign policy, even though they had railed against the policy when Bush was in charge. Likewise, evangelical Christians, the supposed "values voters", chucked it all out the window to vote for a serial adulterer who bragged about assaulting women. We can imagine the Republican reaction if Obama's personal attorney had paid off a porn star to cover up an extra-marital affair during an election campaign. Yet, we hear little from them now.
Rank hypocrisy is a major feature of how the world currently works. Go looking for it anywhere, and you're likely to find it.
Re:Well let's step through it section-by-section (Score:4, Insightful)
In my years here on earth, I've realized that most people are hypocritical to at least some degree. Including me.
The only solution is when one is being hypocritical, and being called on it, that both sides meet and renounce hypocrisy. The problem is, we devolve into 3 year old mentality when confronted by our own hypocrisy rather than admitting it, we point to "worse" hypocrisy as an excuse for our own hypocrisy.
And because enough people play that game that way, we all end up losing, getting more and more hypocritical. The only solution is for the grownups left, those that can see their own hypocrisy without excusing it, to start calling everyone on their own bullshit. Obama wasn't the greatest president, GWB wasn't the worst. They were more or less equal for all intents and purposes. It is only the edges where they differed substantially.
The question is, why do we continue to excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior? I didn't let my kids get away with it, so why are we letting adults who should know better do it?
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's the solution?
Good guys are required to abide strictly by Queensbury Rules, and any slightest slip is punished heavily.
Bad guys are allowed "knife fight" rules. ("Rules? In a knife fight?" "Well, if there aren't any rules...")
That's a guaranteed set-up to make sure that bad guys always win.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, we devolve into 3 year old mentality when confronted by our own hypocrisy rather than admitting it, we point to "worse" hypocrisy as an excuse for our own hypocrisy.
There's a name for that: "what-about-ism".
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, we devolve into 3 year old mentality when confronted by our own hypocrisy rather than admitting it, we point to "worse" hypocrisy as an excuse for our own hypocrisy.
This comment alone should have you at a +5 Insightful alone. I encourage everyone to take a sticky note and put this quote on some surface you can frequently see it. Lots of conversations that don't move forward would suddenly become productive (as is my opinion, anyway).
Uhm, that's ALL the sections (Score:2, Troll)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 dolla
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read the text again, as that's clearly not the case. I understand you want to be right, but to throw out being right for just sounding right doesn't strike me as particularly wise.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem with your logic. If you, me, and most other people are "unsure" he is in violation of some particular statute, there is a problem with the statute. Laws ought to be clear and obvious. Vague laws are subject to all sorts of problems, not the least of which is arbitrary application. And that is a huge problem with our current justice system is that on any given day, we all violate some law somewhere. There are so many laws out there, that breathing may actually violate some clean air act (u
Re: (Score:2)
If you, me, and most other people are "unsure" he is in violation of some particular statute, there is a problem with the statute.
Not necessarily. It takes data to determine guilt, and most people don't have enough data to be sure.
Laws ought to be clear and obvious. Vague laws are subject to all sorts of problems,
The problem with laws that appear to violate the First Amendment (by infringing on free speech rights) for political purposes is that they will always be vague enough to cover what we know ought not to happen but not apply to things we approve of.
The problem with this accusation of guilt is that Trump is not campaigning for re-election, and is not an announced candidate. This the same loophole that allowed
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with laws that appear to violate the First Amendment (by infringing on free speech rights) for political purposes is that they will always be vague enough to cover what we know ought not to happen but not apply to things we approve of.
Thank goodness for the judicial branch, otherwise we'd have a problem.
The problem with this accusation of guilt is that Trump is not campaigning for re-election, and is not an announced candidate.
Are you sure?
Trump officially filed his reelection campaign with the FEC on January 20, 2017, the day of his inauguration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This the same loophole that allowed Obama
Yes, yes. What about Obama? Why don't you go work on the effort to indict Obama for his crimes? I mean, it's a Republican controlled government that seems to universally hate Obama, should be easy, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Laws ought to be clear and obvious.
That'll happen as soon as reality is clear and obvious. We have courts and judges to interpret specific situations. The fact that a bunch of "IANAL" Slashdot posters can't figure it out isn't a problem.
Re:Somebody doesn't seem to know the law of the po (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Read two more paragraphs down. Subsection B (Score:2, Insightful)
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 poli
Re: (Score:2)
FCC employees don't meet this employee definition you keep quoting. The one you are quoting applies to cabinet level employees.
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. As others have pointed out this is all explained in the definitions section you didn't bother to read.
FCC commissioners much like heads of the FBI and CIA are not allowed to engage in this behavio
See 5 USC Â 105 (Score:2)
> 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 i
Re: (Score:2)
Keep trying.
That is not the Federal Communication Commission, the FCC is a regulatory commission that is neither exec
You were right the first time, but even if (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"politicians will do or say anything to protect their "tribe""
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [fas.org] sources [wikipedia.org] on the matter [politifact.com].
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 tha
The Act is shorter than the article (Score:2)
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/... [slashdot.org]
That's copy / pasted from:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Through
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Perhaps the most interesting bit is 7324 subsection (B).
It says that people who are always on duty, because they are appointed officials rather tha
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Are you a lawyer who specializes in this area of law? Because I'm not.
A good honest reporter will actually talk to experts who know what they're talking about and include that information in that article. We're trying to parse a weirdly formatted document making constant assumptions about the meaning of terms and phrases that might be completely unjustified.
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.
I think that's part of what you're getting wrong.
It's not saying they're on duty 24/7, it's saying their position continues outside of normal work hours
Sebelius was 7324, taxpayer money (Score:3)
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 reso
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The article I saw didn't state the provision she was accused under, and the special council wasn't satisfied with her attempts at rectification.
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.
All this talk of exact wording and you're leaving off half a clause?
(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;
Now I don't know if appearing as an FCC commissioner counts more as "authority" or "influence", but he was appearing at CPAC as an FCC commissioner advocating for a specific politic
B applies, exempting him from a (Score:2)
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 offic
Most employees aren't appointed by the President (Score:2)
> 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 em
Entitled to your opinion. OSP disagrees (Score:2)
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 so you don't have to look it up (Score:2)
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 wh
So you've changed your mind (Score:2)
> > 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.
X and Not X is always false (Score:2)
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.
All on the same page now (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except people from both sides have been hit and mentioned several times in this comments section..
But those who have been hit were covered under the Act.
That is clearly not the case here from a plain reading of the Act. O'Rielley is a Presidential appointee, and appointees are explicitly excluded from the Act.
---
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 Fede
Re: (Score:2)
That is clearly not the case here from a plain reading of the Act. O'Rielley is a Presidential appointee, and appointees are explicitly excluded from the Act.
No, they are excluded from part of the act. You're only looking at the exclusions from one section of the act.
Everyone who is not the President or VP is covered by the rest of the act, where they can not use their official position to influence an election. He did that, and isn't the President or VP.
Re: (Score:2)
A fantastic comment modded down. So sad. We truly are living in the age of reputation. Even a scoundrel should be applauded when he speaks truth to power.
Not that you are a scoundrel, but that the person who modded down this comment is probably doing so because of your username and reputation rather than the comment itself (or it's a ZOG astroturfer, which is always a possibility).
Your comment is right on the money. Most people, on both sides of the aisle, have become accustomed to and have developed a taste for legislation from the bench. I have been guilty of that in the past. In addition, witch hunts are as popular as ever and the media, being fairly controlled at this point, decides truth. Tribalism is growing stronger; it's obvious to anyone who has been actually watching to see. Even your comment is downvoted, because someone assumed, based on your background, that it supports the side they don't like. The merit of the content was not even a consideration. The majority of people are not even using that part of their brain on a routine basis.
Real talk: where do we go from here? I don't have strong tribal feelings; never have. I feel allegiance to righteousness and truth. All men are my allies unless they determine to be an adversary. Social structures like cities and countries are a logistical boon, especially as a hedge against tyranny, and loyalty has value but only within reason. That's why it was: God then country. First loyalty is to truth and righteousness, then country. But today, it doesn't work like that, Is it because God is dead? I though a-theism was all about "good without God". Did the secularization of the West miss that step? I digress.
Is there a solution, or should I just stuff some gold under my mattress until I can run off with enough to live the rest of my days on an island or secluded in the woods, separate from the unhuman modern world (ironically, in less human world myself)?
Thank you, you're very kind. (Wow, don't get to say *that* here very often!)
The only solution I see is to try to find those who are at least willing to listen, and attempt to find things we can agree on and work on those things while searching for the next thing(s) we can agree to work together on.
We need to work starting from the most basic of principles, those simple principles we learn in kindergarten and pre-school, things which are the least difficult to agree upon, and gradually work from there to bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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 s
Re: (Score:2)
"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 li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is free publicity to a washed up, aging porn star. Good for her. Up next, granny porn.
Re: (Score:2)
but an actual lawyer says it's basically a joke.
Wait, a lawyer said so? Case closed.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?]
Re: (Score:2)
Name dropping don't count. Where have you seen Dems funnel grants?
Re: (Score:2)
Still don't see an actual cite. Everyone has an opinion, not everyone has facts.
Re: (Score:3)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 re
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: He's Not Wrong.. (Score:2, Informative)
Trump is actually the cleanest and the most honest of the bunch.
This is weaponized stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my...another American who doesn't even know his own constitution.
Aren't you cute!
Re: (Score:2)
What about Joe Biden telling everyone to vote against Robert Bork -a judicial nominee- because Bork wasn't a democrat?
Huh? Federal judges aren't elected, they're nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. A senator telling other senators how to vote in the senate has absolutely nothing to do with the Hatch Act.
Re: (Score:2)
What about when the Obama administration use the NEA to advocate for Obama care???
The NEA is not part of the government, and the Hatch act does not apply.
What about sending the IRS after the tea party?
When it was actually investigated, it turned out the IRS was actually more lenient to tea party groups than left-wing groups....the left wing groups just didn't whine about it.
https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com]
What about using the "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down Rush Limbaugh?
The Fairness Doctrine ended in the 1987 [wikipedia.org].
What about how the DoJ employees use 90% of their personal earnings to donate to democrats they are investigating?
[citation required]
Btw, DOJ employees aren't paid that well and still must consume food.
What about Joe Biden telling everyone to vote against Robert Bork -a judicial nominee- because Bork wasn't a democrat?
The horror of the Senate doing it's job of "advise and consent".
Bork
Re: (Score:2)
One major problem with your assertions is that neither of the links you posted to support it, actually support it. Neither says the IRS was more lenient to right than left, all they say is that the IRS also had some keywords they used which
Re: (Score:2)
The bias wasn't that they didn't look at left-wing groups, it was that a typical left-wing process might take a couple of months at worst while when looking at a tea party group, it would take years.
Actually, it took years for both. Again, the left-wing groups didn't whine about it, so they did not sue. Which means they did not get a settlement and an apology.
Inspector's General report:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Overall story:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelli... [nymag.com]
A settlement is not a complete story. It is about the groups involved in the litigation. So it is not actually evidence that only Tea Party groups had trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like how Obama approved Ajit "pile of shit" Pai.
THANKS OBAMA!
Re: (Score:2)
Hello, little Russian troll. How's Vladdy keeping these days?