White House violation of the Hatch Act - Partisan Political Activity

I believe this is the most obviously corrupt and illegal issue that's hidden in plain sight in this whole debacle. The Hatch Act prohibits the use of any federal resources for partisan poltical activity.

What the hell even begins to be legitimate about using the White House and all its taxpayer-paid staff to mount a prolonged attack on Joe Wilson?? What legitimate Executive function was served?

In some of the articles I've read in the last week, it was mentioned that these people might be prosecuted for a violation of Joe Wilson's Civil Rights - interfering with his ability to earn a living. As far as I'm concerned, this is something that should be highlighted ... as the other issue of War Crimes is pursued as well.

I can conceive of absolutely no legitimate purpose of any kind that's served by all the obvious attention given to Wilson/Plame. The White House claims they had no role in dispatching Wilson or receiving his report. Then what the hell makes a single meeting regarding him a legitmate use of taxpayer funds? If there's any question that this was partisan, it should be quickly answered by the reichbot drumbeat of "Wilson is a Democrat" and other partisan rhetoric. The motives and allegiances are clear: partisan, not public interest.

This is the most obvious (if not the most serious) case of waste, fraud, and abuse I can see. We've become so totally insensitive to corruption that we're letting this pass as though it's business as usual and doesn't merit attention. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The White House is a government function and 100% of the attention on Wilson/Plame has been partisan and political. No public purpose of any kind is served by the extensive time and resources invested in "dealing" with Wilson - a private citizen!



On edit: I've seen absolutely no discussion of this thematic issue on DU. We seem to willingly accept the blinders (limits and boundaries) we're given by the corporate media. We need to occasionally step back and take a look from a position not dependent on regurgitated media memes, imho.

but it's ok for THEM to manufacture and staff a disinformation and smear campaign against a private citizen who dared speak out, and to out his wife??and then to call media people to aid in their efforts?

Just as in Watergate, this is an ideological jihad - investigating and attacking a private citizen and his spouse for partisan, propagandistic reasons, using taxpayer-funded resources.

.

Wilson's attorney is scheduled to speak later today, let's hope he addresses this very issue.

Political Do's and Don'ts for Federal Employees:

http://www.cpms.osd.mil/vip/per_data/128.htm

Go read it. Interesting stuff.

... I was repeatedly made aware of prohibited activities, including email, campaign materials, etc. The phrase "waste, fraud, and abuse" was voiced weekely if not daily with respect to operations - even though management violated those restrictions pervasively.

I was just going to ask where and what and why!
It helps to know the rules and 'inside' reasoning.
Maybe I should read it first but wasn't Wilson
still a federal employee? :shrug:

I'll go read it......
ok...got it.
TY!

The Office of the Special Counsel is responsible
for investigating reports and complaints
concerning Hatch Act violations. (1-800-854-2824)

:thumbsup:

... I believe Wilson left Federal employment in 1998. As a "Former Ambassador," he enjoys an ex officio status, which was key in sending him to Niger. When I looked at his ("OpenSecrets") campaign contributions going back to 1999, he lists himself as a private consultant/adviser under a DBA business name.

that he has been referred to as the 'former' ambassador.

Thanks again! :thumbsup:

OSC SEEKS DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST TWO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR SENDING PROHIBITED POLITICAL E-MAIL MESSAGES WHILE ON DUTY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 9/8/04
CONTACT: CATHY DEEDS

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has filed two similar complaints for disciplinary action against Federal employees for sending politically partisan electronic mail messages while on duty, in violation of the Hatch Act. The OSC filed the complaints with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSBP) on August 12, 2004.

One complaint against U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employee Maureen Taylor-Glaze, alleges that she sent an e-mail message to about 15 of her EPA coworkers while she was on duty and in her Federal office building. The message contained a widely-circulated picture purportedly to be actress Jane Fonda and John Kerry speaking at an anti-war rally. Under the picture were numerous negative statements about Presidential candidate John Kerry, and the statement, “Please keep this going. We do not need this man as our President.”

A similar complaint alleges that U.S. Air Force civilian employee Donald Thompson sent an e-mail message titled, “George W”, to more than 70 recipients while he was on duty. The message contained a document mimicking President Bush’s resume and is filled with allegations of incompetence and malfeasance specifically directed at President Bush’s defeat in the upcoming election. It also contains the phrases, “Please consider me when voting in 2004” and “Please send this to every voter you know.”

Special Counsel Scott Bloch said, “The use of Internet and electronic mail is second-nature to almost everyone, and has become a favorite and effective campaign tool, even more so perhaps, than four years ago. I want to remind Federal employees to be vigilant about following the Hatch Act, because we will consider this activity a form of electronic leafleting, and thus a violation of the prohibition on partisan political activity in the workplace.”

The Hatch Act prohibits Federal executive branch employees from engaging in political activity while on duty, in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the U.S. government, while wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying the office or position of the employee, or using any vehicle owned or leased by the government. Political activity has been defined as activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for a partisan political office or partisan political group.

The OSC provides advisory opinions on the Hatch Act and also enforces the provisions of the Act by filing petitions for disciplinary action. Employees who are charged with violations are entitled to a hearing before the MSPB. Under the Act, the presumptive penalty for a violation is removal from Federal employment. However, upon a unanimous vote of its members, the MSPB can mitigate the penalty to no less than a 30-day suspension without pay. Employees have the right to appeal the MSPB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Tatel's opinion? Lawrence O'Donnell posted on Huffington that "All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/the-one-very-good-reason-_b_3769.html

... classified information. I have hopes (almost expectations) that Fitzgerald will address the violation of Wilson's Civil Rights. I'm not so confident that Hatch Act violations will be specifically pursued, possibly due to lesser penalties and narrow standards for prosecution. It is, however, extremely significant in placing the WHite House's activities in context. No public interest of any kind was served by 'attack the messenger' activities.

Can we get the message out there in in the media through some letters to the editor, maybe?

sitting at his bank of computers in the white house, calling precincts to let them know how many votes they had to hack.

Everything that goes on in the White House has a political tinge to it. For purposes of the Hatch Act there is zero chance that any activity conducted out of the White House short of direct fundraising is going to be the subject of a Hatch Act violation. When cabinet officials appear at campaign rallies for a sitting president during an election, do you think someone calcluates the time they spent and deducts that from their salary? Don't think so. Debates over what constitutes political activity and what doesn't are too amorphous in the context of a culture in which, for many years, everything that the offices of the pres and vp do is inherently political. It would create so much uncertainty, not just for when repubs are in power, but also for when Democrats regain the White House, that it would be a bad idea.

Perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements to a grand jury are meaty enough -- and far less ambiguous -- than trying to de-politicize the White House.

onenote

... almost solely to overt campaign activities. I highlight it and use it as a benchmark of the ethical legitimacy of the White House's investment of time and effort in attacking anyone who dissents, takes exception, or ideologically opposes their entirely and wholly partisan political agenda. Such an effort (conspiracy) in the White House is accepted solely under the 'rules' of partisan politics where anything goes up to and often inculding lies and slander. Such activities hae absolutely no justification when undertaken on the taxpayer's dime.

This is a regime that knows no ethic beyond "might makes right" - an admitted foreign policy that's clearly applied domestically as well.

... this was a first* term pResidency* whose primary activity during that term was campaigning. In other words, they were CREePing.

The obstruction of justice had the immediate benefit of keeping this corruption (mostly) out of the 2004 General Election. They kept the lid on as long as they could.

only civil servants?

:shrug:

No. It covers anyone using federal (public) resources.