Still Hating America.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
english is a second language for you guys? that would explain a lot. and SS finally got his first "poor spelling" post in. Here all along I thought he didn't do those because he was cool, but it turns out he just hadn't progressed far enough to feel comfortable doing them. I suppose he'll have an endless barrage of arrows for me now. look out Hank!

Funny, I thought here that the subject-change-triggered-by-foolish-error would go to a boxed wine joke instead of sarcasm, but I was wrong. Clearly, this exchange will provide fresh clues to scholars of the future attempting to divine the Tao of Hank.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And if that got you mad, you must be furious about the current scandal involving Karl Rove, the GSA, and about 15 other government agencies.

oh, and i googled this one. the Hatch act? are you kidding me? i need to find a politics board that has at least one other person that has clue 1 about how the government works. the fucking hatch act. can you believe that. marone.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
english is a second language for you guys? that would explain a lot. and SS finally got his first "poor spelling" post in. Here all along I thought he didn't do those because he was cool, but it turns out he just hadn't progressed far enough to feel comfortable doing them. I suppose he'll have an endless barrage of arrows for me now. look out Hank!

Wait, that was English?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
oh, and i googled this one. the Hatch act? are you kidding me? i need to find a politics board that has at least one other person that has clue 1 about how the government works. the fucking hatch act. can you believe that. marone.

If I understand correctly, Rove et al. got advice that it would not violate the Hatch Act for political appointees to use government facilities to brief other political appointees on the political landscape. No career people, and no request that anything in particular be done. I don't know much about the Hatch Act, but I'm guessing that the latter things are verboten. The trouble came because when one political appointee being briefed didn't get where the lines were drawn and said what Rove only wanted people to understand. But for what she did, it doesn't sound like anyone violated the law. But it does sound like there were well-organized efforts to go right up to the limit of what's legal. So one might expect Congress to investigate some and then strengthen the Hatch Act to make more things verboten.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If I understand correctly, Rove et al. got advice that it would not violate the Hatch Act for political appointees to use government facilities to brief other political appointees on the political landscape. No career people, and no request that anything in particular be done. I don't know much about the Hatch Act, but I'm guessing that the latter things are verboten. The trouble came because when one political appointee being briefed didn't get where the lines were drawn and said what Rove only wanted people to understand. But for what she did, it doesn't sound like anyone violated the law. But it does sound like there were well-organized efforts to go right up to the limit of what's legal. So one might expect Congress to investigate some and then strengthen the Hatch Act to make more things verboten.

here's the problem for congress: paid aides are not allowed to work on campaigns within official offices, or on government time, under strict application of the law. How many do you think follow that?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here's the problem for congress: paid aides are not allowed to work on campaigns within official offices, or on government time, under strict application of the law. How many do you think follow that?

Congress has already found a solution to that: Make the law inapplicable to Congress.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If I understand correctly, Rove et al. got advice that it would not violate the Hatch Act for political appointees to use government facilities to brief other political appointees on the political landscape. No career people, and no request that anything in particular be done. I don't know much about the Hatch Act, but I'm guessing that the latter things are verboten. The trouble came because when one political appointee being briefed didn't get where the lines were drawn and said what Rove only wanted people to understand. But for what she did, it doesn't sound like anyone violated the law. But it does sound like there were well-organized efforts to go right up to the limit of what's legal. So one might expect Congress to investigate some and then strengthen the Hatch Act to make more things verboten.

There's one incident that is questionable--at GSA, where the head seemed to ask "how can GSA help these candidates". That's pretty bad, but we already know GSA is corrupt, given Abramoff and Safavian. Who else wants to lead a boring agency other than the least competent of the political toadies who probably believe graft is the way politics should be done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here's the problem for congress: paid aides are not allowed to work on campaigns within official offices, or on government time, under strict application of the law. How many do you think follow that?

I know some people in those jobs, and have the impression that they pay very careful attention to those rules.

Originally posted by Burger
Congress has already found a solution to that: Make the law inapplicable to Congress.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Hatch Act does not apply to Congress, but there are some laws/rules/etc. that do.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Hatch Act does not apply to Congress, but there are some laws/rules/etc. that do.

It does not. Hank mentioned one of the rules. But it is necessarily more lax given that all staff are political there, down to the janitor.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Congress has already found a solution to that: Make the law inapplicable to Congress.

there is a parallel rule, or at least was.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there is a parallel rule, or at least was.

Both the house and the senate have rules that are similar, but a little more loose than the Hatch Act.

And then there's the issue of what they are as a pracitcal matter expected to do outside of their work as a staff member. Although they can't be compelled to help on a campaign I suspect most staffers believe they can't compel their retention as a staff member.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
english is a second language for you guys? that would explain a lot. and SS finally got his first "poor spelling" post in. Here all along I thought he didn't do those because he was cool, but it turns out he just hadn't progressed far enough to feel comfortable doing them. I suppose he'll have an endless barrage of arrows for me now. look out Hank!

Can you please explain to me how the Office of the Special Counsel is desperate?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Both the house and the senate have rules that are similar, but a little more loose than the Hatch Act.

And then there's the issue of what they are as a pracitcal matter expected to do outside of their work as a staff member. Although they can't be compelled to help on a campaign I suspect most staffers believe they can't compel their retention as a staff member.

Exactly, and while they might not admit to working on campaigns on office time and in the office, I find it hard to believe they don't. The last few weeks before a tight election I doubt many of them are investigating the impact of water regulations on the district.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly, and while they might not admit to working on campaigns on office time and in the office, I find it hard to believe they don't. The last few weeks before a tight election I doubt many of them are investigating the impact of water regulations on the district.

I gather that you think that's a bad thing -- I do -- and therefore that you also think that the Executive Branch should not be using government resources to political ends. I'm happy we could find common ground on this one.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Can you please explain to me how the Office of the Special Counsel is desperate?

Don't you mean desparate?