• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Department disputes diplomat’s charges of retaliation

DiAnna said:
I just agreed with you. Hicks says he was demoted. DOS says he wasn't, and retains the same rank and salary. If anyone else claims to have been demoted because of speaking out against Bengazi while the DOS denies it happened, they too should prove their allegations. Or STFU.

My position is completely consistent. Yours, however, makes no sense whatsoever. Anyway, I'm done here. These discussions are never about issues, they always end up being partisian finger-pointing bitch sessions. Useless waste of time! :)
Click to expand...

Well, it all boils down to creditability and motive.
Mr Hicks has not given any one any reason to question his creditability and what was his motive? what does he have to gain for not telling the truth? The Obama administration has given many reasons to question its credibility and has many motives to demote Hicks
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
What do you expect? It's from Media Matters.
Click to expand...

Here's the quote, let me know if you believe it's out-of-context.

REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS (R-TN): So when you came back to the United States, were you planning on going back to Libya?

MR. HICKS: I was. I fully intended to do so.

REP. DESJARLAIS: And what do you think happened?

MR. HICKS: Based on the criticism that I received, I felt that if I went back, I would never be comfortable working there. And in addition, my family really didn't want me to go back. We'd endured a year of separation when I was in Afghanistan 2006 and 2007. That was the overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed -- I accepted an offer of what's called a no-fault curtailment. That means that there's -- there would be no criticism of my departure of post, no negative repercussions. And in fact Ambassador Pope, when he made the offer to everyone in Tripoli when he arrived -- I mean Charge Pope -- when he arrived, he indicated that people could expect that they would get a good onward assignment out of that..​
 
mtm1963 said:
out of context quotes.
Click to expand...

Full video:

Here.

So it becomes pretty obvious why Media Matters did not quote the whole thing. He agreed not to go back, he did not agree to accept the demotion.
 
MaggieD said:
And what evidence do you have that he is lying? Why would he lie about being demoted. And exactly what did he bring on himself??
Click to expand...

here is why i am certain that he is lying
as a federal employee, to be demoted would require paperwork effecting said demotion
if he had such paperwork, he would have introduced it
he has not done so
which means he lied about any demotion
 
pbrauer said:
Hicks has said he was demoted but it isn't true, it was his choice to come back to the sates. Pity party anyone.:(



The State Department on Wednesday rejected charges by Gregory B. Hicks, the former deputy ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, that he was demoted and treated unfairly after he criticized the department’s performance during and after the September terrorist attack in Benghazi.

“The Department has not and will not retaliate against Mr. Hicks,” said Patrick Ventrell, acting deputy spokesman for the State Department.

In House testimony, Hicks said that despite receiving high praise for his performance during the Benghazi crisis from President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, he was later given a “blistering critique of my management style” by Elizabeth Jones, the acting assistant secretary for the Near East.

Hicks said family concerns were the “overriding” reason for his decision not to return to Libya. But he said he also felt that “I would never be comfortable working there” after the criticism. When he voluntarily withdrew from his assignment in Tripoli, Hicks said, he was given a State Department job in Washington that he considered a demotion.

Hicks’s decision took him out of the annual assignment cycle, and difficulty in finding a suitable assignment was “not uncommon” in such situations, Ventrell said.

“However, the Department worked with him to find a suitable temporary assignment and succeeded,” he said. “Mr. Hicks still receives the same salary and has the same employment status and rank as before. Per standard procedure, Mr. Hicks recently submitted a preference list for his next assignment and is under consideration along with other Foreign Service employees.”

State Department disputes diplomat’s charges of retaliation - The Washington Post​
Click to expand...

As if the State Department is going to admit to any wrong doing...LMAO!!!! Surely they would never lie about it.
 
justabubba said:
here is why i am certain that he is lying
as a federal employee, to be demoted would require paperwork effecting said demotion
if he had such paperwork, he would have introduced it
he has not done so
which means he lied about any demotion
Click to expand...

That's your evidence? really? :rofl
 
DiAnna said:
All Hicks has to do is give written permission for the State Department to release his personnel records to the press, and they can see for themselves whether he was "demoted", or is still at the same rank and pay as he was before. Simple, really. One wonders why he wouldn't do that.
Click to expand...

justabubba said:
here is why i am certain that he is lying
as a federal employee, to be demoted would require paperwork effecting said demotion
if he had such paperwork, he would have introduced it
he has not done so
which means he lied about any demotion
Click to expand...

most of you don't understand how promotions and demotions work in government jobs. for some one to get officially demoted in high ranking jobs in the government first a hearing needs to be conducted and a decision is made and that decision can be appeared, What happened to Hicks was not an official demotion the state dept is smart enough not to do that because then they would have to give an official reason why and conduct a hearing, what happened to hicks is called being black balled an unofficial demotion an a embarrassing reassignment to a menial desk job below his qualifications with the same pay. it wont show up on his record as a demotion just a reassignment
 
Last edited:
mtm1963 said:
the full text of the conversation, not just a snip.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which... where can one find the full transcripts for the hearing?
 
apdst said:
That's your evidence? really? :rofl
Click to expand...

absolutely
but you are welcome to show us any evidence of a demotion in civil service ranks where that personnel action was not documented in writing
until you show us that a demotion has ever happened without the paper work, i stand on my statement

so, prove me wrong
i challenge you to do so
and we all know you will not accept that challenge
 
justabubba said:
absolutely
but you are welcome to show us any evidence of a demotion in civil service ranks where that personnel action was not documented in writing
until you show us that a demotion has ever happened without the paper work, i stand on my statement

so, prove me wrong
i challenge you to do so
and we all know you will not accept that challenge
Click to expand...
Hicks never said he received an official demotion he said "effectively demoted" and i will refer you to my last post to help explain the rest

trfjr said:
most of you don't understand how promotions and demotions work in government jobs. for some one to get officially demoted in high ranking jobs in the government first a hearing needs to be conducted and a decision is made and that decision can be appeared, What happened to Hicks was not an official demotion the state dept is smart enough not to do that because then they would have to give an official reason why and conduct a hearing, what happened to hicks is called being black balled an unofficial demotion an a embarrassing reassignment to a menial desk job below his qualifications with the same pay. it wont show up on his record as a demotion just a reassignment
Click to expand...
 
trfjr said:
Hicks never said he received an official demotion he said "effectively demoted" and i will refer you to my last post to help explain the rest
Click to expand...
what we know is that hicks was NOT demoted
so much for the alleged 'retaliation'
hicks is a disgruntled employee who is not telling the truth when he insists he was demoted
 
justabubba said:
what we know is that hicks was NOT demoted
so much for the alleged 'retaliation'
hicks is a disgruntled employee who is not telling the truth when he insists he was demoted
Click to expand...

And i like how you conveniently ignore the rest of the explanation until you address that you have no argument
 
DiAnna said:
Okay. Everyone who says the State department demoted them because of what they said about Bengazi should release their personnel records if the State Department denies it ever happened. Satisfied? :lol:
Click to expand...

He was pretty upfront that he was demoted in position, not pay grade. Claiming that he's telling a falsehood because he wasn't demoted in pay grade is therefore a strawman. For example, as an E5 I currently hold an E6 billet - if I were to be placed into an E4 billet from here, I would be effectively "demoted", despite retaining the same paycheck. In order to actually reduce me in paygrade would require a pretty significant amount of paperwork and explanation etc.; and I'm just an E5, not a GS-14. In order to actually reduce his paygrade, the State Department would have been forced basically to go to court and make it's case.

Apparently they weren't willing to do that. Shocking.


Still folks continue to fail to exit their own mutually contradictory logic. Hicks is angry because he was demoted, which is why he is making up all this stuff, except he wasn't demoted, so he's a liar. You can get one or the other, but not both.
 
justabubba said:
absolutely
but you are welcome to show us any evidence of a demotion in civil service ranks where that personnel action was not documented in writing
until you show us that a demotion has ever happened without the paper work, i stand on my statement

so, prove me wrong
i challenge you to do so
and we all know you will not accept that challenge
Click to expand...

Since Hicks has not claimed a reduction in paygrade, but a demotion in billet assignment, this argument is either A) uninformed or B) itself a deliberate lie in the form of a strawman.

:) Which is it?
 
justabubba said:
absolutely
but you are welcome to show us any evidence of a demotion in civil service ranks where that personnel action was not documented in writing
until you show us that a demotion has ever happened without the paper work, i stand on my statement

so, prove me wrong
i challenge you to do so
and we all know you will not accept that challenge
Click to expand...

I doubt this if true is one's pay is kept the same. There are all sorts of ways to marginalize someone at their job. It happens in private business all the time. "All dressed up with no place to go." The Federal government's equivalent of New York's Rubber Rooms for teachers.
 
mtm1963 said:
yep.

they cut out the end of his comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fielcGbaBY4
Click to expand...
The comments Media Matters posted on their website was consistent with the story I posted at the OP. He choose not to return to Libya because his family was the overriding issue. The notion that he was criticized for mentioning what Susan Rice said on the Sunday talk shows is false. He was criticized because he spoke to Rep. Jason Chaffetz without other State Department officials being present.

From the NYT:

Mr. Hicks offered an unbecoming view of political supervision and intimidation inside the Obama administration. When Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, visited Libya after the attack, Mr. Hicks said his bosses told him not to talk to the congressman. When he did anyway, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from one meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance, Mr. Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.

“So this goes right to the person next to Secretary of State Clinton. Is that accurate?” asked Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio. Mr. Hicks responded, “Yes, sir.”

A State Department official said Mr. Hicks had been free to talk to Mr. Chaffetz, but that department policy required a department lawyer to be present during interviews for any Congressional investigation.

Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

​
 
MaggieD said:
I doubt this if true is one's pay is kept the same. There are all sorts of ways to marginalize someone at their job. It happens in private business all the time. "All dressed up with no place to go." The Federal government's equivalent of New York's Rubber Rooms for teachers.
Click to expand...

that is no "demotion"
 
pbrauer said:
The comments Media Matters posted on their website was consistent with the story I posted at the OP. He choose not to return to Libya because his family was the overriding issue. The notion that he was criticized for mentioning what Susan Rice said on the Sunday talk shows is false. He was criticized because he spoke to Rep. Jason Chaffetz without other State Department officials being present.

From the NYT:

Mr. Hicks offered an unbecoming view of political supervision and intimidation inside the Obama administration. When Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, visited Libya after the attack, Mr. Hicks said his bosses told him not to talk to the congressman. When he did anyway, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from one meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance, Mr. Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.

“So this goes right to the person next to Secretary of State Clinton. Is that accurate?” asked Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio. Mr. Hicks responded, “Yes, sir.”

A State Department official said Mr. Hicks had been free to talk to Mr. Chaffetz, but that department policy required a department lawyer to be present during interviews for any Congressional investigation.

Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

​
Click to expand...

and when i said they left out the end of hicks' comments when speaking with the rep. from TN, i was correct. he clarified his position at the end and the post and MM left that out.

why? because it didn't fit the narrative they wanted you to believe which was hicks was not demoted.
 
mtm1963 said:
and when i said they left out the end of hicks' comments when speaking with the rep. from TN, i was correct. he clarified his position at the end and the post and MM left that out.

why? because it didn't fit the narrative they wanted you to believe which was hicks was not demoted.
Click to expand...

He wasn't demoted, it was HIS choice to not return to Libya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom