• 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!

Bush officials violated Hatch Act, agency concludes

Not sure if it's a stretch or not. You're welcome to your opinion, but I wouldn't consider either of us the authoratative word on this.

Read the act. It applies to civil servants, not elected officials.

But, if you agree he may have violated something, isn't that enough to seek to hold him responsible?

Sure. Now, go dig up an actual violation of the law, because you're barking up the wrong tree, with this one.
 
I have to prove a negative?

Why don't you prove that an investigation did take place. That would make more sense.

Why don't you post a thread on that topic? This one is about Bush's (suspected) violations of the Hatch Act.
 
Why don't you post a thread on that topic?

Ohhhh, so now you don't even wanna talk about it. :lamo

This one is about Bush's (suspected) violations of the Hatch Act.

Then, this thread is finished, because I don't think the president can violate the Hatch Act.
 
Then, this thread is finished, because I don't think the president can violate the Hatch Act.

He absolutely can, if he uses a public facility (white house) and public resources (planes, phones, etc.) for political purposes. The Hatch Act requires political representatives to conduct their political activities separately from their elected responsibilities.
 
Read the act. It applies to civil servants, not elected officials.



Sure. Now, go dig up an actual violation of the law, because you're barking up the wrong tree, with this one.

The Bush white house violated the act. In the WH there are civil servents, working under the president. Seems to me there is an important element here you're overlooking. The claim is his Adminsitration violated it, civil servents working on his orders.
 
He absolutely can, if he uses a public facility (white house) and public resources (planes, phones, etc.) for political purposes. The Hatch Act requires political representatives to conduct their political activities separately from their elected responsibilities.

That too. ;)
 
He absolutely can, if he uses a public facility (white house) and public resources (planes, phones, etc.) for political purposes. The Hatch Act requires political representatives to conduct their political activities separately from their elected responsibilities.

If that's the case, then every president since FDR has violated the Hatch Act, in some way, or another. That would mean that the president would have to hire a private plane, when he went to a political rally, vice using Air Force 1.

I believe this is the most feeble of a long line of feeble attempts to pin something on GW.
 
If that's the case, then every president since FDR has violated the Hatch Act, in some way, or another. That would mean that the president would have to hire a private plane, when he went to a political rally, vice using Air Force 1.

I believe this is the most feeble of a long line of feeble attempts to pin something on GW.

I think this is yet again another feeble misunderstanding on your part.

At least seven Cabinet secretaries to President George W. Bush took politically motivated trips at taxpayer expense while aides falsely claimed they were traveling on official business, the independent Office of Special Counsel said Monday night in concluding a three-year probe.

Federal Eye - Bush officials violated Hatch Act, agency concludes

This is a problem. Do you really fail to understand why?
 
Last edited:
The Bush white house violated the act. In the WH there are civil servents, working under the president. Seems to me there is an important element here you're overlooking. The claim is his Adminsitration violated it, civil servents working on his orders.

Can the Nuremburg defense really fly, here? I'm thinking, no.
 
I think this is yet again another feeble misunderstanding on your part.



This is a problem. Do you really fail to understand why?

Do cabinet members ever not travel at tax payers expense? If Nancy Pelosi took the jet, that the taxpayers are paying for, to a political rally, would that also be a violation of the Hatch Act?
 
You should really stop practicing law as an amateur at this point since you've just thoroughly embarrassed yourself.

Here come the insults. wait for it....wait for it....

:lamo

Since when are cabinet members civil servants?
 
Can the Nuremburg defense really fly, here? I'm thinking, no.

Defense? Can you really excuse the orders of the president? In Nuremburg weren't both those who ordered the crimes punished with those who committed them?
 
Defense? Can you really excuse the orders of the president? In Nuremburg weren't both those who ordered the crimes punished with those who committed them?

If they're unlawful orders, you can. :rofl

The evidence is getting thinner by the minute.

trufers gone wild.
 
Do cabinet members ever not travel at tax payers expense?

Absolutely, when they travel on personal time for personal activities. Campaigning is done at the campaign's or personal expense, not at federal expense, for government officials (different from the president).

If Nancy Pelosi took the jet, that the taxpayers are paying for, to a political rally, would that also be a violation of the Hatch Act?

It's amazing how you have zero facts in your possession, and yet, you feel entitled to an opinion. This article has a good explanation of the travel rules for political campaign travel.

Consider reading it.

Taxpayers pay for Bush's campaign travel - Politics - msnbc.com

This issue is covered in federal regulations here: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/janqtr/11cfr9004.7.htm

(5)(i) If any individual, including a candidate, uses a government
airplane for campaign-related travel, the candidate's authorized
committee shall pay the appropriate government entity an amount equal
to
:
(A) The lowest unrestricted and non-discounted first class
commercial air fare available for the time traveled, in the case of
travel to a city served by a regularly scheduled commercial airline
service; or
(B) The lowest unrestricted and non-discounted coach commercial air
fare available for the time traveled, in the case of travel to a city
served by regularly scheduled coach airline service, but not regularly
scheduled first class airline service; or
(C) In the case of travel to a city not served by a regularly
scheduled commercial airline service, the commercial charter rate for an
airplane sufficient in size to accommodate the campaign-related
travelers, including the candidate, plus the news media and the Secret
Service.
(ii) If a government airplane is flown to a campaign-related stop
where it will pick up passengers, or from a campaign-related stop where
it left off passengers, the candidate's authorized committee shall pay
the appropriate government entity an amount equal to the greater of the
amount billed or the amount required under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this
section for one passenger.
(iii) If any individual, including a candidate, uses a government
conveyance, other than an airplane, for campaign-related travel, the
candidate's authorized committee shall pay the appropriate government
entity an amount equal to the commercial rental rate for a conveyance
sufficient in size to accommodate the campaign-related travelers,
including the candidate, plus the news media and the Secret Service.
(iv) If any individual, including a candidate, uses accommodations,
including lodging and meeting rooms, during campaign-related travel, and
the accommodations are paid for by a government entity, the candidate's
authorized committee shall pay the appropriate government entity an
amount equal to the usual and normal charge for the accommodations, and
shall maintain documentation supporting the amount paid.
(v) For travel by airplane, the committee shall maintain
documentation of the lowest unrestricted nondiscounted air fare
available for the time traveled, including the airline, flight number
and travel service providing that fare or the charter rate, as
appropriate. For travel by other conveyances, the committee shall
maintain documentation of the commercial rental rate for a conveyance of
sufficientsize, including the provider of the conveyance and the size, model and
make of the conveyance.

In other words, when public officials use a government plane for campaigning purposes, they're required to pay for it.

Second, if a trip is both public business AND campaign activities, they are required to pay for the portion of the travel that is campaign related.

Bush's administration DID NOT DO THIS.
 
Last edited:
If they're unlawful orders, you can. :rofl

The evidence is getting thinner by the minute.

trufers gone wild.

And if you order someone to violate the Hatch act, is that unlawful?
 
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.

I tend to be a bit pesimistic on issues like this just because the elites always get away with breaking the law. Take Dick Cheney for example with that whole scandel in Nigeria, what did he do? He just paid them a fat wad of cash so he could skate on by and not be held accountable for his actions, some things never seem to change since its very unlikley that anyone will seek to press charges just becasue he USED to be president, but the title of "former president" essaintaly gives him the power to do what he wants without suffering the consqeunces and we see this time and time again. If our leaders don't follow the laws that they help create, why should we?
 
Absolutely, when they travel on personal time for personal activities. Campaigning is done at the campaign's or personal expense, not at federal expense, for government officials (different from the president).

So, if cabinet members faked paperwork, then they violated the law and not the president. Yes?



It's amazing how you have zero facts in your possession, and yet, you feel entitled to an opinion. This article has a good explanation of the travel rules for political campaign travel.

What facts do you have? You tell us what the law says, but you still can't prove that Bush violated the law.



Of course taxpayers are going to pay for Bush's campaign travel. We pay for Obama's campaign travel, too.
 
And if you order someone to violate the Hatch act, is that unlawful?

I'm thinking maybe not, because there's a difference between something like this and committing an atrocity. Either way, it doesn't excuse those civil servants of violating the Hatch Act.

The big question is, how many average joe civil servants are the trufers prepared to send to jail, in an attempt to nab GW? I'm thinking that won't look too good, which is a good reason why this investigation will go into the Trufer Journals and that's about it.
 
So, if cabinet members faked paperwork, then they violated the law and not the president. Yes?

That is what I'm sure the investigation will address. If the president or his key advisors advised them to break the law, however, they are guilty of conspiracy to commit a federal crime.

What facts do you have? You tell us what the law says, but you still can't prove that Bush violated the law.

A good starting point might be knowing what the law says. :roll: Maybe, at some point, you can familiarize yourself with the law, as well, and then we can have a productive discussion.

Of course taxpayers are going to pay for Bush's campaign travel. We pay for Obama's campaign travel, too.

Bush does not equal cabinet members. There are separate rules. Durr.
 
I'm thinking maybe not, because there's a difference between something like this and committing an atrocity. Either way, it doesn't excuse those civil servants of violating the Hatch Act.

Violating a federal election law in a democracy IS an atrocity. Those laws serve a purpose, the main part of which is to keep incumbents from misusing the already significant advantage they hold in an election. Let me just say...if this were Obama we were talking about, you'd be ****ting yourself.

If Obama's people are following these same strategies, they should ALSO be investigated (though, I suspect, with the release of this report there will be significant measures put into place to address this by the Obama administration).

The big question is, how many average joe civil servants are the trufers prepared to send to jail, in an attempt to nab GW? I'm thinking that won't look too good, which is a good reason why this investigation will go into the Trufer Journals and that's about it.

Civil servants typically are immune from prosecution in these cases because they are understood, rightfully, to be victims of the overwhelming power wielded against them, professionally, by political appointees and elected officials. This is law is designed to PROTECT CIVIL SERVANTS from being used politically.

Maybe this is something you should read up on.
 
Last edited:
Wow, who saw that coming? The same people on the right who criticize Obama for everything under the sun are now defending Bush so ardently . I am in shock. You'd think these people who are now touting such an anti-big government philosophy would be more than happy to criticize Bush for his indiscretions during his term. Color me surprised. :roll:
 
I'm thinking maybe not, because there's a difference between something like this and committing an atrocity. Either way, it doesn't excuse those civil servants of violating the Hatch Act.

The big question is, how many average joe civil servants are the trufers prepared to send to jail, in an attempt to nab GW? I'm thinking that won't look too good, which is a good reason why this investigation will go into the Trufer Journals and that's about it.

The difference is only in scope and servarity, not legality. What is illegal is illegal. We have lesser and stronger punishments depending on the servarity, but if illegal, it's illegal.
 
It is so funny to hear American conservatives...

If a president they dont like has someone employed by him that does something wrong.. then the buck stops with the President and he is to blame...

If a president they do like has someone employed by him that does something wrong.. then it is in no way the Presidents fault!
 
it's even funnier that they absolutely distort the meaning of what a conservative is in order to protect this war criminal. now watch the liberals do the same thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom