The Trump Cabinet and key post thread (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

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

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Explain to me how the administrative branch amended and/or passed a law without Congressional approval.

They didn't. I said as much in the post you quoted. What they did was create a policy that extended Hatch Act violations to certain civilian employees, including SecDef.

 

[TampaJoe]

They didn't. I said as much in the post you quoted. What they did was create a policy that extended Hatch Act violations to certain civilian employees, including SecDef.

Then it is a violation of DoD policy. The fact you refer to DoD documents should tell you something. The fact as you said the DoD created a policy should tell you that. It isn’t a Hatch Act violation. If anything it is a violation of DoD policy.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Then it is a violation of DoD policy. The fact you refer to DoD documents should tell you something. The fact as you said the DoD created a policy should tell you that. It isn’t a Hatch Act violation. If anything it is a violation of DoD policy.

The policy that specifically refers to the Hatch Act when instructing people on what they can and can't do.

I can make the font bigger if it'll help.

 

[Sendai]

The policy that specifically refers to the Hatch Act when instructing people on what they can and can't do.

I can make the font bigger if it'll help.

And the office of the special counsel tells us that the Hatch Act allows the Secretary of Defense to campaign for candidates.

 

[MT15]

And the office of the special counsel tells us that the Hatch Act allows the Secretary of Defense to campaign for candidates.

Again. Holy cow. Who cares? There’s a very good reason it’s never been done. You don’t care about that because all you want to do is be pedantic on a message board.

It’s unethical. It should never happen.

 

[TampaJoe]

The policy that specifically refers to the Hatch Act when instructing people on what they can and can't do.

I can make the font bigger if it'll help.

Legally that’s the policy that applies. The actual criminal law called the Hatch Act wasn’t violated as it didn’t extend to Cabinet Officers. If the DoD wanted to set policy based on Hatch Act restrictions then a violation of that policy is by definition a DoD matter. The DoD does not have the legal authority to unilaterally modify actual law. That takes an act of Congress under the US Constitution.

I can type that larger for you if that helps.

 

[TampaJoe]

Again. Holy cow. Who cares? There’s a very good reason it’s never been done. You don’t care about that because all you want to do is be pedantic on a message board.

It’s unethical. It should never happen.

When I ask an ethical question on this board folks respond “ Hey it legal”. “It’s not against the law”. Now you say the law doesn’t matter when it comes to ethical questions.

I agree with you. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is ethical or moral. It would be nice if other board members understood that distinction. Especially in matters involving independence and conflicts of interest.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

And the office of the special counsel tells us that the Hatch Act allows the Secretary of Defense to campaign for candidates.

Legally that’s the policy that applies. The actual criminal law called the Hatch Act wasn’t violated as it didn’t extend to Cabinet Officers. If the DoD wanted to set policy based on Hatch Act restrictions then a violation of that policy is by definition a DoD matter. The DoD does not have the legal authority to unilaterally modify actual law. That takes an act of Congress under the US Constitution.

I can type that larger for you if that helps.

If you two really want to split this hair, how about this: Hegseth violated the prohibitions laid out in the Hatch Act that, per DoD policy, apply to him. Agreed?

 

[TampaJoe]

If you two really want to split this hair, how about this: Hegseth violated the prohibitions laid out in the Hatch Act that, per DoD policy, apply to him. Agreed?

Not as you worded it but you appear to be moving in the right direction. No real need to mention the hatch act. It is a potential violation of DoD policy.

 

[Sendai]

If you two really want to split this hair, how about this: Hegseth violated the prohibitions laid out in the Hatch Act that, per DoD policy, apply to him. Agreed?

And He can wave DoD policy. So it doesn’t apply to him.

 

[MT15]

When I ask an ethical question on this board folks respond “ Hey it legal”. “It’s not against the law”. Now you say the law doesn’t matter when it comes to ethical questions.

I agree with you. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is ethical or moral. It would be nice if other board members understood that distinction. Especially in matters involving independence and conflicts of interest.

You’re probably talking about Hunter and the distinction was that you were trying to say that what Hunter did was the same as what Trump did. And the “hey it’s legal” was said because it was true. What Hunter did was of questionable ethics but legal. What Trump did (hell, what he does all the time) is both illegal, unethical and immoral many times.

That’s the difference.

 

[Sendai]

Again. Holy cow. Who cares? There’s a very good reason it’s never been done. You don’t care about that because all you want to do is be pedantic on a message board.

It’s unethical. It should never happen.

But it does happen. Mayor Pete. Throughout history cabinet members endorse candidates and campaign. Like the sitting President who appointed them when up for reelection. It’s one other reasons that cabinet members are exempt from the campaign restrictions.

 

[TampaJoe]

You’re probably talking about Hunter and the distinction was that you were trying to say that what Hunter did was the same as what Trump did. And the “hey it’s legal” was said because it was true. What Hunter did was of questionable ethics but legal. What Trump did (hell, what he does all the time) is both illegal, unethical and immoral many times.

That’s the difference.

That is whataboutism. Ethically you look at each case based on its own fact patterns and merits. That is what I was probably thinking.

 

[MT15]

That is whataboutism. Ethically you look at each case based on its own fact patterns and merits. That is what I was probably thinking.

No it isn’t. You were saying the actions were equivalent and others were pointing out the difference. Nobody defended what Hunter did as entirely ethical.

 

[MT15]

But it does happen. Mayor Pete. Throughout history cabinet members endorse candidates and campaign. Like the sitting President who appointed them when up for reelection. It’s one other reasons that cabinet members are exempt from the campaign restrictions.

For the eleventh billionth time - the Secretary of Defense is unique among Cabinet members because he commands troops. You should never want an overtly political military. Never.

 

[TampaJoe]

No it isn’t. You were saying the actions were equivalent and others were pointing out the difference. Nobody defended what Hunter did as entirely ethical.

Some people here certainly made that claim.

Conflicts of interest should be judged on a case by case basis. Legality isn’t the determining factor.

Ethics goes above and beyond the law. It governs professional conduct for lawyers, doctors, accountants, real estate, insurance, health care. If the law were sufficient you wouldn’t need ethical standards. You could just refer to the law.

So to your point, something maybe be legal and still unethical and immoral. If that is your position then we are in agreement.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Not as you worded it but you appear to be moving in the right direction. No real need to mention the hatch act. It is a potential violation of DoD policy.

Not as I worded it? Potential violation? lmao

The DoD policy I quoted (and forking linked to multiple versions of) mentions the Hatch Act. It prohibits SecDef from doing exactly what he did.

 

[TampaJoe]

Not as I worded it? Potential violation? lmao

The DoD policy I quoted (and forking linked to multiple versions of) mentions the Hatch Act. It prohibits SecDef from doing exactly what he did.

If that is indeed true as you claim, it is a violation of DoD Policy. I believe I have said as much multiple times.