Bush officials violated Hatch Act, agency concludes

apdst said:

I wasn't posting about anything other than the topic, until you and Doc jumped on the bandwagon. Then, you made it all about me.

Click to expand...

This thread is about David Axelrod? This thread is about Bart Stepak? This thread is about prosecuting the Obama administration?

StillBallin75 said:

Isn't that what AWOL means?

Click to expand...

No. It basically means that you can't be absent without permission from someone with the authority to give that permission. "Leave", isn't restricted to the 30 days of annual leave that everyone in the service receives.

Catz Part Deux said:

This thread is about David Axelrod? This thread is about Bart Stepak? This thread is about prosecuting the Obama administration?

Click to expand...

It sure as hell ain't about APDST. I think we can all agree on that.

Cole said:

Agree with your point. Either enforce the laws or get rid of (or revise) the ones that are outdated.

But before pursuing prosecutions, it would be appropriate to determine if some of this behavior has just become business as usual in Washington (suspicions lean that is the case).

Am all for cleaning things up moving forward. Not so much for putting people in jail just because they happened to be the most recent ones in a behavior pattern that has been going on for decades.


.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your post. And yes, Conservatives (those that are left) strongly believe in accountability. After all, if we forget what Bush did, then we are enabling Obama and future presidents to do the same.

And to American - This is not about not being able to move on. This is about keeping our system safe for Democracy. Yes, I bash Bush. I bash Obama too. I bash anyone who disregards our forefathers. If you weren't so busy acting like a troll all the time, you would see that.

... According to the report, the White House improperly orchestrated the use of assets throughout the government to help key congressional allies as the voting drew near, including arranging more than 100 ostensibly official appearances by top appointees in battleground states such as Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Connecticut.
This federally funded travel was organized, approved and closely tracked by Bush's political office, the Office of Special Counsel found, describing the activity as leading to the illegal diversion of federal funds and workers' time.

At one point in 2006, it disclosed, operatives employed by the Republican National Committee moved into White House quarters where they worked in tandem with the political-office staff to coordinate the campaign.

While White House officials may legally pursue close political contact with outsiders, the report said, "the systematic, partisan political activity described in this report, including strategically supplying targeted candidates with administration support to secure electoral gains, goes far beyond a need for political information [meant] to effectively advise the president." ...

Click to expand...

the dicknbush regime played in the gray area of the hatch act
it would be pointless to seek prosecution as the only ones who would be nailed would be the non-political civil servants who were doing as they were instructed by their supervisors - the political appointees - who, as you will find below, enjoy a special dispensation relative to their partisan political involvement, and that any abuse is punishable by the president alone

... Occasionally, some of the estimated 100,000 documents reviewed by the counsel's office described the need for these trips to be reimbursed by political funds, but no evidence could be found that they were. ...

Click to expand...

here, is the only overt violation, where the internal records confirm reimbursement monies were due from the campaign because of political activities engaged, and those monies were never paid
the penalty should be to require payment of the amounts reflected by those administration documents

The Hatch Act: An Overview -- GovExec.com

... Political appointees operate under the same rules with some exceptions. They are allowed to engage in political activity while on duty, in government buildings, wearing official uniforms or insignias, or using government vehicles, provided their actions don't amount to coercive use of the office to which they have been appointed. They cannot pay for political activities with taxpayer dollars, however. ...

Click to expand...

in reading this thread it appears many are unfamiliar with the latitude provided to political appointees to engage in partisan political activities. they can - and do - campaign while being paid a federal salary, during work hours, from the federal work place
and that is acceptable under the law, as it is presently constructed. it gives a huge advantage to the incumbent
to have the taxpayer pay for their partisan politicking, all the political appointee has to do is schedule an official federal business activity where they want to go and federal travel dollars pay for it. that can be a five minute observation followed by travel to a partisan event. because they conducted official business on the trip they have satisfied the provisions of the law

... The penalties for political appointees are less clear because OSC refers cases to the president, who can decide whether to pursue disciplinary action. ...

Click to expand...

notice that the office of special counsel, ordinarily charged with prosecuting hatch act violations, can only make recommendations to the president when the violation pertains to a political appointee ... someone that president appointed

i imagine Obama could now be the one to initiate prosecution, but we see he has been inclined to allow the past regime to skate on other matters which are substantially more important
can't imagine that he would pursue this
the only ones who would be hurt are the civil servants - the career employees who were not politically appointed and who do not receive special hatch act dispensations. their violations would have been likely due to their following the orders of the political appointee. how fair would it be to prosecute them for following orders?

justabubba said:

the dicknbush regime played in the gray area of the hatch act
it would be pointless to seek prosecution as the only ones who would be nailed would be the non-political civil servants who were doing as they were instructed by their supervisors - the political appointees - who, as you will find below, enjoy a special dispensation relative to their partisan political involvement, and that any abuse is punishable by the president alone


here, is the only overt violation, where the internal records confirm reimbursement monies were due from the campaign because of political activities engaged, and those monies were never paid
the penalty should be to require payment of the amounts reflected by those administration documents

The Hatch Act: An Overview -- GovExec.com

in reading this thread it appears many are unfamiliar with the latitude provided to political appointees to engage in partisan political activities. they can - and do - campaign while being paid a federal salary, during work hours, from the federal work place
and that is acceptable under the law, as it is presently constructed. it gives a huge advantage to the incumbent
to have the taxpayer pay for their partisan politicking, all the political appointee has to do is schedule an official federal business activity where they want to go and federal travel dollars pay for it. that can be a five minute observation followed by travel to a partisan event. because they conducted official business on the trip they have satisfied the provisions of the law

notice that the office of special counsel, ordinarily charged with prosecuting hatch act violations, can only make recommendations to the president when the violation pertains to a political appointee ... someone that president appointed

i imagine Obama could now be the one to initiate prosecution, but we see he has been inclined to allow the past regime to skate on other matters which are substantially more important
can't imagine that he would pursue this
the only ones who would be hurt are the civil servants - the career employees who were not politically appointed and who do not receive special hatch act dispensations. their violations would have been likely due to their following the orders of the political appointee. how fair would it be to prosecute them for following orders?

Click to expand...

Political appointees are exempted from the Hatch Act.

Section 7324 of The Hatch Act provides an exemption to the ban on political activities to:

* (i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or

* (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 the nationwide administration of Federal laws.

Hatch Act of 1939 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

It's the point I've been making all along. Some folks are so blind with their hatred for Bush, they refuse to see the facts.

That's why I mentioned Axlerod and Emanual.

apdst said:

Political appointees are exempted from the Hatch Act.



It's the point I've been making all along. Some folks are so blind with their hatred for Bush, they refuse to see the facts.

That's why I mentioned Axlerod and Emanual.

Click to expand...

nope
read it again
the political appointees are still subject to the hatch act
but they are exempt from some of its prohibitions
i previously offered a cite which provides an overview of the hatch act; you are encouraged to read it

justabubba said:

nope
read it again
the political appointees are still subject to the hatch act
but they are exempt from some of its prohibitions
i previously offered a cite which provides an overview of the hatch act; you are encouraged to read it

Click to expand...

Annnnd, I provided the actual text of the bill. :rofl

apdst said:

Annnnd, I provided the actual text of the bill. :rofl

Click to expand...

and you still managed to misunderstand what was stated
shock [/sarcasm]

justabubba said:

and you still managed to misunderstand what was stated
shock [/sarcasm]

Click to expand...

I'll ignore the personal attack, because that was expected and post this, from a government website on, "less restricted", personel by the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act prohibits Less Restricted employees from:

* using their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election;

* knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving a political contribution from any person (this may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations);

* knowingly soliciting or discouraging the participation in any political activity of anyone who has business pending before their employing agency;

* being candidates for public office in partisan political elections; or

* engaging in political activity while:

* on duty;

* in a government office;

* wearing an official uniform; or

* using a government vehicle

Information on Hatch Act

Click to expand...

The question to the, "Bush is a definite criminal", folks; which one of Bush's people violated these prohibitions, what did they do and show us where Bush ordered them to do so? Thanks in advance.

danarhea said:

I know, I know, Bush hasn't been in office in more than 2 years, and this is old news, even though it has just come to light. Why don't we just move on?

Here is why we don't just move on - If former Bush officials are allowed to skate without consequences, then what is to prevent Obama from doing the exact same thing, knowing that they will also never be on the hook for it? The Hatch Act either works or it doesn't work, and there must be limits to abuse of political offices, don't you think?

That is why my answer must be prosecute. Either that, or just repeal the Hatch Act as a law relic that gives the American people a warm and fuzzy feeling that their leaders are accountable for their actions, but just doesn't work in real life.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Great post, absolutely agree.

apdst said:

I'll ignore the personal attack, because that was expected and post this, from a government website on, "less restricted", personel by the Hatch Act.



The question to the, "Bush is a definite criminal", folks; which one of Bush's people violated these prohibitions, what did they do and show us where Bush ordered them to do so? Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

so then you hopefully now recognize that political appointees are NOT exempt from the hatch act - only some of its provisions ... as reflected by your own excerpt (which follows):

The Hatch Act prohibits Less Restricted employees from:

* using their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election;

* knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving a political contribution from any person (this may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations);

* knowingly soliciting or discouraging the participation in any political activity of anyone who has business pending before their employing agency;

* being candidates for public office in partisan political elections; or

* engaging in political activity while:

* on duty;

* in a government office;

* wearing an official uniform; or

* using a government vehicle

Information on Hatch Act

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

so then you hopefully now recognize that political appointees are NOT exempt from the hatch act - only some of its provisions ... as reflected by your own excerpt (which follows):

Click to expand...

Got any evidence that the Bush White House violated the Hatch Act? That would be tough, since they would have to pratically rig an election to be in violation. Are we gonna go down this road, again?

BTW, post for us which political appointees are/are not exempted from the Hatch Act. Much abliged!

Aunt Spiker said:

So I could start another thread discussing the overall action that can be taken against any president in office (during or after presidency) and say the exact same thing.

I really don't care about the personal-views of the OP. I saw it as bringing up a subject that IS an issue of concern in general - partisanship aside.

There is little REASON for a president to stick to the rules - thus - rules are being violated frivolously. . . anyone who says otherwise is fooling their selves. And it most certainly is not "just Bush" - because, as was pointed out, it's become "business as usual"

If no one does anything because they want to be stubborn and insist that "you're just against so-n-so!" then NOTHING will ever change. The issue has to be pressed and change has to start somewhere. :shrug: Why not Bush?

Click to expand...

Well after a 1000 Bush threads, a pattern emerges. I guess you just haven't been around.

apdst said:

Political appointees are exempted from the Hatch Act.

Click to expand...

They aren't exempted from having to pay for the use of government property in campaign activities.

That's the issue.

American said:

Well after a 1000 Bush threads, a pattern emerges. I guess you just haven't been around.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean that if it involves Bush, you start attempting to misdirect the thread onto perceived Obama misdeeds.

Yeah. I've seen that pattern.

Catz Part Deux said:

Oh, you mean that if it involves Bush, you start attempting to misdirect the thread onto perceived Obama misdeeds.

Yeah. I've seen that pattern.

Click to expand...

No, I suspect the OP of mouthfoaming over Bush. It was worst when Bush was in office, but now it's just insanity to try to bring the guy back into the discussion. It's a clear case of BDS. When will we stop hearing about it?

Catz Part Deux said:

They aren't exempted from having to pay for the use of government property in campaign activities.

That's the issue.

Click to expand...

Just garnish their checks, then.

American said:

No, I suspect the OP of mouthfoaming over Bush. It was worst when Bush was in office, but now it's just insanity to try to bring the guy back into the discussion. It's a clear case of BDS. When will we stop hearing about it?

Click to expand...

What if these allegations are true? Would it bother you for the Obama administration to misuse federal property (and your tax dollars) to campaign for democrats around the country? Because---it would bother me. I hope there are people right now, at the federal level, working diligently to cover their asses so that an investigation like this...

Hatch Act lessons lag, study says

In another year or so...has zero findings of violations.

This is not a partisan issue.

apdst said:

Just garnish their checks, then.

Click to expand...

The guilty parties, in this case, are no longer in office. IMO, they should be prosecuted, and hopefully, fined to the nth degree for falsifying trip reports and failing to pay for their use of government property.

Don't you agree?

Catz Part Deux said:

The guilty parties, in this case, are no longer in office. IMO, they should be prosecuted, and hopefully, fined to the nth degree for falsifying trip reports and failing to pay for their use of government property.

Don't you agree?

Click to expand...

I'm just not seeing a real huge crime here. Sorry. If it was Obama's people, I still wouldn't see a real huge crime. Mostly because I know that this kind of thing goes on and there's not much of a way around it. I mean, when Obama goes to political rally and Axlerod tags along, what's he supposed to do? Walk? Drive his personal vehicle across the country? What difference does one more body on AF 1 really make in terms of fuel consumption?

apdst said:

I'm just not seeing a real huge crime here. Sorry. If it was Obama's people, I still wouldn't see a real huge crime. Mostly because I know that this kind of thing goes on and there's not much of a way around it.

Click to expand...

This isn't about Air Force One.

Have you even read the article that you're commenting on?

You don't think it is a big deal for federal cabinet members to falsify financial reports? To use FAA and military planes for campaigning (and not pay for their use)? To use federal facilities and staff for campaign purposes?

This isn't one guy tagging along on a plane ride with the president. It's submitting false financial reports, for one thing.

Government corruption doesn't bother you?

I mean, when Obama goes to political rally and Axlerod tags along, what's he supposed to do? Walk? Drive his personal vehicle across the country?

Click to expand...

Axelrod is supposed to reimburse the federal government for the cost of a first class airline ticket to that destination. If he isn't doing so, he is in violation of federal law.