The Trump Cabinet and key post thread (5 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Surely to be a clown show. We know that RFK certainly thinks he’s getting nominated for HHS, which includes FDA.

 

[Sendai]

If you could read and understand, the DoD rules I posted specifically tied certain employees (including PAS's) to Title 5 CFR Part 734... which is the Hatch Act. Let me quote it for you. I will even bold it for you to make it easy.

"SECTION 1: GENERAL ISSUANCE INFORMATION

1.1. APPLICABILITY.
This issuance applies to OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this issuance as the “DoD Components”).

1.2. POLICY.
a. Presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation, non-career senior executive service members, and non-permanent appointees in the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service:

(1) Are subject to the restrictions in Subpart D of Part 734 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
(2) Are prohibited from engaging in activities that create the appearance of DoD association or support for any partisan political cause or issue.
(a) This policy bars such officials from participating, for example, as organizers, speakers, hosts, or special guests in activities sponsored by the campaign committee of a political candidate, or in activities related directly or indirectly to fundraising on behalf of a political candidate or political party.

That’s not the Hatch act. It’s a DoD regulation. The issue I addressed was is it a Hatch Act violation. The office of the special counsel specifically enforces the Hatch Act. And the office of the special counsel says it’s not a Hatch Act violation. So it’s not going to bring charges under the Hatch act.


And the secretary of defense has the power to waive DoD regulations. So that’s not going anywhere.

 

[Sendai]

Who cares? It has nothing to do with what I have asked you several times now and you refuse to answer.

Fact: the Secretary of Defense doesn’t participate in political campaigns. It’s for good reason, because they alone among Cabinet members direct the armed forces. In a democracy the last thing anyone should want is a politicized military - can you at least agree with that? Or are you so far gone over justifying whatever this corrupt administration wants to do that you won’t even admit that?

I’ve stated clearly that he and cabinet members have the right to endorse and campaign under the Hatch Act, first amendment and all. It’s their right. I don’t see it as a problem. Again, first amendment rights.

 

[efil4]

I’ve stated clearly that he and cabinet members have the right to endorse and campaign under the Hatch Act, first amendment and all. It’s their right. I don’t see it as a problem. Again, first amendment rights.

They can if on own time, using own resources to get there.

So tell me, how did Hegseth get from DC to Ft Campbell to Hebron? his own car?

He violated both DoD regs and the Hatch Act. Its that simple. I know you dont like to be wrong, but in this instance, there are clear violations and standing at podium declaring "im here of my own volition" doesnt give him the ability to break DoD/Hatch regs.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That’s not the Hatch act. It’s a DoD regulation. The issue I addressed was is it a Hatch Act violation. The office of the special counsel specifically enforces the Hatch Act. And the office of the special counsel says it’s not a Hatch Act violation. So it’s not going to bring charges under the Hatch act.


And the secretary of defense has the power to waive DoD regulations. So that’s not going anywhere.

You are being dishonest. DoD official guidelines say that SecDef is subject to the prohibitions laid out in the Hatch Act. Whether a case is brought or not is not what determines whether or not Hegseth violated the Hatch Act. His position is subject to the rules laid out in the Hatch Act. He violated those rules. Period.

 

[TampaJoe]

You are being dishonest. DoD official guidelines say that SecDef is subject to the prohibitions laid out in the Hatch Act. Whether a case is brought or not is not what determines whether or not Hegseth violated the Hatch Act. His position is subject to the rules laid out in the Hatch Act. He violated those rules. Period.

So it’s a DOD violation. I think that is the point. The DOD can’t make a cabinet position a violation of the Hatch Act if it is not specified in the law. The DOD can on its own authority extend those restrictions to the SECDEF if it chooses. That would make it a DOD violation.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So it’s a DOD violation. I think that is the point. The DOD can’t make a cabinet position a violation of the Hatch Act if it is not specified in the law. The DOD can on its own authority extend those restrictions to the SECDEF if it chooses. That would make it a DOD violation.

Holy shirt, you can respond to me. It's a miracle.

Follow along with me. If the DoD extends the prohibitions of the Hatch Act to SecDef, and SecDef violates those prohibitions, SecDef is violating the Hatch Act. It's just that simple.

 

[TampaJoe]

Holy shirt, you can respond to me. It's a miracle.

Follow along with me. If the DoD extends the prohibitions of the Hatch Act to SecDef, and SecDef violates those prohibitions, SecDef is violating the Hatch Act. It's just that simple.

Follow along with me. That Hatch Act is a law passed by Congress. If it does not extend to SECDEF, the DOD cannot amend a duly passed law to cover the SECDEF. They do not have that legal authority. Therefore if the SECDEF is not covered in the language of the Hatch Act it is not a HATCH Act violation.

However, the DOD can extend on its own authority, the Hatch Act provisions to the SECDEF. If the SECDEF violates those provisions then it is a DOD violation and not a Hatch Act violation.

Then the question becomes can the SECDEF exempt himself from those DOD provisions.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[MT15]

I’ve stated clearly that he and cabinet members have the right to endorse and campaign under the Hatch Act, first amendment and all. It’s their right. I don’t see it as a problem. Again, first amendment rights.

Do you not see any issue with politicizing the military? That’s unbelievable to me. What is wrong with people that anyone thinks this is okay?

Certain jobs carry responsibilities that can curtail certain rights. In order to command the Armed Forces a person should hold themselves above the political realm while they are in office. He’s commanding millions of troops. He shouldn’t be political. It’s been that way forever. And it should stay that way.

Having his job is a huge responsibility and he serves every single member of the armed forces. He doesn’t treat his job with the respect it deserves and he disrespects every member of the armed forces nearly every day.

 

[MT15]

Of course. She should. But it’s impossible not to notice that all the horrible incompetent men are left alone and the incompetent women are gone.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Of course. She should. But it’s impossible not to notice that all the horrible incompetent men are left alone and the incompetent women are gone.

Yep. Should we be surprised?

 

[MT15]

Of course.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Follow along with me. That Hatch Act is a law passed by Congress. If it does not extend to SECDEF, the DOD cannot amend a duly passed law to cover the SECDEF. They do not have that legal authority. Therefore if the SECDEF is not covered in the language of the Hatch Act it is not a HATCH Act violation.

However, the DOD can extend on its own authority, the Hatch Act provisions to the SECDEF. If the SECDEF violates those provisions then it is a DOD violation and not a Hatch Act violation.

Then the question becomes can the SECDEF exempt himself from those DOD provisions.

I will refer you to this post, where I link to the specific DoD document that refers to what is and is not allowed under DoD guidelines as it pertains to Hatch Act activity.

 

[TampaJoe]

I will refer you to this post, where I link to the specific DoD document that refers to what is and is not allowed under DoD guidelines as it pertains to Hatch Act activity.

The DoD document can’t amend the language in the Hatch Act. It can apply those provisions administratively within the DoD but it cannot amend a duly passed law. So if there is a violation, it would be a DoD violation and not a violation of the Hatch Act.