Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ericgtr12, Mar 6, 2018.
Repeat offender. Lock her up.
Twitter's freaking out calling for Trump to fire her but he was backing Moore too, this sort of corruption is right up his alley.
Ya know, I'm beginning to think these Trump folks aren't on the up and up.
Two sets of rules and expectations for two different administrations. One is expected to be punished, the other gets away clean.
Since FBI Director James Comey‘s letter to Congress on Friday notifying them of newly discovered Clinton-related emails, the reaction has been fierce with Democrats immediately accusing Comey of overstepping his authority. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reidfired off a letter accusing Comey of violating the Hatch Act. Many have since joined in with the same accusations. But, the crazy thing about this is just a few months ago, an Obama administration official was not only accused of violating the Hatch Act, he was actually found to have violated the law. What happened to this top official? Absolutely nothing. No one, including the President, seemed to care back then.
The Hatch Act generally prohibits federal employees from using their official authority “for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” There is much debate about whether or not the law would require Comey to have intentionally taken action to affect the results of the election. Clearly, it would be pretty hard to prove Comey made the disclosure for purely political reasons. Richard Painter, the former chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House and now a Clinton supporter, filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics claiming a violation. He claims specific intent isn’t necessary. “The Hatch Act and ethics rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election,” Painter said.
Regardless of how you come down on the legal issue, what’s particularly interesting about this entire showdown is that in July, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro was actually found to have violated the Hatch Act — and not only did no one pay attention, he wasn’t even punished! The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary admitted that he made a mistake but also said he did not intend to break the law. He was let off the hook by President Obama.
As we reported in July, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel issued a report that found Castro violated the Hatch Act during a Yahoo interview with Katie Couric. According to the Office of Special Counsel, “Secretary Castro’s statements during the interview impermissibly mixed his personal political views with official agency business despite his efforts to clarify that some answers were being given in his personal capacity.” Federal employees are prohibited from making political remarks when using their official title or when speaking from their official capacity. Castro made his statement in the HUD television studio with the HUD seal visible behind him.
“It is very clear that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced, thoughtful, and prepared candidate for President that we have this year,” Castro said during the interview with Couric. The Office of Special Counsel found that there was absolutely no question that this was a blatant violation of the Hatch Act. The agency forwarded the full report to President Obama, who chose not to take action.
My point is not to say that Obama should have taken disciplinary action against Castro. I’m also not saying that I think Comey will be found to have violated this particular law. His case is clearly less black and white when you compare it to Secretary Castro. My point is that if we are going to all of a sudden start strictly enforcing the Hatch Act, let’s make sure we are doing so in a fair manner, and not trying to dredge up this piece of law for political reasons. Especially when the circumstances in Comey’s case are far from clear cut.
This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of this author.
Chris White contributed to this report.
The "Hatch Act" is about as useless as the "Logan Act."
Remember when Obama had Clinton do campaign speeches behind the Presidential seal? Or Obama LITERALLY saying Trump will not be President.
No. I believe that if you violate a law - you should answer to it. This isn't partisan politics no matter how you might want to frame it.
I expect Trump to follow up the way Obama did, only fair.
Prepare to get hit with the term "whataboutism." Which is just an excuse for them. This is all partisan.
They say it's about the "law" but we know it's not.
No - what's "fair" is that anyone who breaks a law has to answer for it. If it didn't happen in the past, it should have - but it doesn't mean two wrongs make a right. Hold everyone accountable. That is fair.
Sanders should cite that Julian Castro violated the Hatch Act and was not punished by Obama, so naturally Trump will not punish her, because she did not intend to break the law either. How are they going to argue without being hypocrites? Did the media make a big deal about Castro when it happened, vs today? Fair treatment, right?
whataboutism... In other words the response to this thread?
So you're pro deporting illegal immigrants and arresting marijuana users?
You mean Conway, Not Sanders. And you completely ignored my post about fair.
So you're going to play whataboutism?
No, I meant press sec. Sanders in WH briefing about Conway.
So answer the question - should we deport all illegals for breaking the law and arrest marijuana users for breaking the law?
You said "No - what's "fair" is that anyone who breaks a law has to answer for it. ."
So there's not whataboutism here.
Just FYI I think you meant to quote samcraig there and not me. Easy to do!
Oops. Originally I was going to reply to you, but saw Samcraig and decided to reply to him instead.
I'm not going to indulge you or anyone else with whataboutisms that are also irrelevant to this topic.
Regardless of what happened in the last several decades, should KAC be held accountable. Yes or no?
This is what Communists used to do.
This crap is starting to freak me out.
Yes. Should absolutely be held responsible. Change has to start sometime.
Went back and found what I could on this. These look more like interviews. That would make this a pretty weak accusation.
How about this: she is held "accountable" (even though it's not even likely she broke it) but then we enforce the laws on everything - from illegal immigration to marijuana dispensaries? We also punish Julian Castro for his "violation" of the Act?
This "Hatch Act" crap is all about going after the Trump Administration. It's all partisan.
The Hatch Act was created in the late 30s. It's not all about going after the Trump Administration.
Gotta love it when people try to hide behind "whataboutism" to avoid answering for hypocrisy. It almost getting as worn out as playing the race card.
To answer the question, she should be punished in the same manner and extent in which past transgressions have been punished.