• 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

mtm1963 said:
translation, you are calling hicks a liar.
Click to expand...

If he said he was demoted, then sure I would call him a liar. But I don't believe that's what he said.
 
pbrauer said:
Victoria Toensing Should Confer With Her Client | Blog | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...

This is fascinating and VERY reminiscent of the Paula Jones scandal in which Ann Coulter had the role of Toensing. The lawyers, ostensibly representing Jones, had zero interest Jones and a laser focus on hurting the President and ultimately pushed Jones to lie and then abandoned her when it became clear she had no credibility. They pushed Jones into that disaster that resulted in Jones becoming a national joke.

Hicks is smarter than Jones and I don't think he is going to fall for his manipulation much longer.

The very fact that Hicks lawyer is making these public statements is evidence that the goal is not to protect and represent Hicks, but to attack the administration.

It is so transparently political it is embarrassing.
 
pbrauer said:
so he is a liar, because it was HIS choice not to return to his job.
Click to expand...

i understand this is your position.

i'm going to believe him and not this administration or you.
 
trfjr said:
he said "effectively demoted"


Effectively
1. In an effective way.
2. For all practical purposes; in effect: "Though a few rebels still held out, the fighting was effectively ended."
Click to expand...

it's all in the context of it's use!
 
MaggieD said:
Actually, he never said he was demoted.
Click to expand...

then he has no basis to call himself a whistleblower, if he has not been adversely affected by his actions
 
mtm1963 said:
i understand this is your position.

i'm going to believe him and not this administration or you.
Click to expand...

I believed him when he said: "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. "

Facts are facts, you can't hold the same job you had in the past if you are no longer in same place.
 
pbrauer said:
I believed him when he said: "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. "

Facts are facts, you can't hold the same job you had in the past if you are no longer in same place.
Click to expand...

I think we should all be careful here. I think Hicks has a legitimate gripe, but in no way does his gripe rise to the level of whistleblower, ie;" One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority. " simply put, he revealed nothing we did not already know and though we could take issue with characterization if the Benghazi attack, incorrectly characterizing the event does not rise to level of wrongdoing in any meaningful way.

I think Hicks is being manipulated but I don't think he is a bad guy in this by any stretch and I would hate to see him destroyed as collateral damage in this witch hunt. His manipulator a do not care about him one whit, and the moment he does serve the purpose of attacking the administration, his own representation will throw him to the wolves.

Lets not be the wolves.

Focus on Toensing, she is the one completely misrepresenting what Hicks has said, turning his mild statements of disappointment into false accusations of flat out threats of destruction.

She should be disbarred if she has a genuine attorney client relationship with Hicks.
 
pbrauer said:
I believed him when he said: "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. "

Facts are facts, you can't hold the same job you had in the past if you are no longer in same place.
Click to expand...

look up what demotion means!
 
mtm1963 said:
you aren't in his shoes. you didn't go thru what he did.

you're just another clinton, "who's cares how they died", person.
Click to expand...

like hicks, i was a federal employee
and i remain a union officer
which experience tells me that if hicks were demoted there would be an extensive paper trail documenting that action
and since we have seen no documentation it is safe to conclude there was no demotion
 
justabubba said:
like hicks, i was a federal employee
and i remain a union officer
which experience tells me that if hicks were demoted there would be an extensive paper trail documenting that action
and since we have seen no documentation it is safe to conclude there was no demotion
Click to expand...

given the situation for him, there is NO paper trail.

remember they(State) think he is lying.
 
Would you work overseas for the administration that let made your boss a corpse through lack of security? I know I wouldn't.
Would you work for the administration overseas when you knew the truth of what occurred and knew how they have treated messengers of bad information?

Has he been affected by coming forward? Possibly. Whistleblower laws are there to protect people from retaliation, including future retaliation. He deserves protection under the whistleblower laws because he is offering more information about the events that occurred than the administration was or is.

I think we should all be careful here. I think Hicks has a legitimate gripe, but in no way does his gripe rise to the level of whistleblower, ie;" One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority. " simply put, he revealed nothing we did not already know and though we could take issue with characterization if the Benghazi attack, incorrectly characterizing the event does not rise to level of wrongdoing in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

Corroberation and multiple witnesses of the events as they occurred is just as important as uncovering wrongdoing. And misleading people with public statements is wrongdoing when your job is governing. Not to mention downplaying this event had an effect on the election....
 
Last edited:
When the president tells you. "i think you did a ****ty job" should you line up your next job or wait for him to add a "TERMINATED" to your resumé?

Im guessing it went down like, "You can either quit and save face or I can get you fired." But that's just a guess.
 
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...

Welllllllllllllllllllllll I'm convinced. I mean the State Department would NEVER put out something that wasn't TRUE......... right????????????
 
mtm1963 said:
look up what demotion means!
Click to expand...

Mr. Hicks voluntarily decided not to return to Libya so the term doesn't apply. He decided to remain in the states because of of family. But there is no way he could perform his former job while he is here. I am sure he thinks in his mind that in some way he was wronged and therefore demoted. So while I said earlier he lied, I have now decided to back away from that assessment. I think he is a good man and it too bad this situation happen.
 
pbrauer said:
Mr. Hicks voluntarily decided not to return to Libya so the term doesn't apply. He decided to remain in the states because of of family. But there is no way he could perform his former job while he is here. I am sure he thinks in his mind that in some way he was wronged and therefore demoted. So while I said earlier he lied, I have now decided to back away from that assessment. I think he is a good man and it too bad this situation happen.
Click to expand...

Skip to the 1:15 mark and see if this clears things up for you:

 
pbrauer said:
Mr. Hicks voluntarily decided not to return to Libya so the term doesn't apply. He decided to remain in the states because of of family. But there is no way he could perform his former job while he is here. I am sure he thinks in his mind that in some way he was wronged and therefore demoted. So while I said earlier he lied, I have now decided to back away from that assessment. I think he is a good man and it too bad this situation happen.
Click to expand...

he states what his job is now is a demotion.

usually when someone gets demoted they have less supervision over others, less influence on decisions made and fewer responsibilities.
 
Grim17 said:
Skip to the 1:15 mark and see if this clears things up for you:

Click to expand...


Is it sad that my response to this is:

Damn that piss and vinegar attitude is smokin' hot.

On a more serious note though when she puts it like that is sounds incredibly convincing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom