You’re saying AIPAC made the sitting Secretary of State make a partisan speech to a political party convention from Jerusalem?
No President in history has told a Cabinet member to do this. It’s never been done. Pompeo himself told the State Department they weren’t allowed any partisan participation.
Do you not see any hypocrisy in this?
It appears to be illegal, but if the President and Congress won’t enforce the law, they can basically do anything.
Checks and balances don’t work when more than one branch collude
So who agrees with and supports the Republican Party platform?
Appears to be illegal because you were told it was?
Perhaps we should first try reading a little about the Hatch Act.
Pompeo sent a message that no State Department officials are allowed to participate in partisan politics at any time.
"…presidential and political appointees and career (senior executives) are subject to significant restrictions on their political activity; they may not engage in any partisan political activity in concert with a partisan campaign, political party, or partisan political group, even on personal time and outside of the federal workplace.”
He is participating in partisan political activity while on government time on a taxpayer funded trip in a foreign country.
One of the best articles I’ve ever read about the failure of a party. Can only hope that the reckoning will indeed arrive after November.
I’m sure all those views were the fact-checkers from the other side.
I was surprised that CNN carried almost the whole RNC first night. They only had a few short talk times.
OK, we tried. Since SoS is appointed by the President with approval of the Senate, he is not a “Further Restricted Employee”. He’s a “Less Restricted Employee”, and may not “Engage in political activity – i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group – while the employee is on duty”.
How did we do?
Well, you overlooked the middle of that quote:
Engage in political activity – i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group – while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally owned or leased vehicle.
I havent seen any text of what he’s supposed to be saying, but this is a convention - there is no “success or failure” to direct his activity towards, it’s just a over-sized, open door political meeting. And regardless, he may be overseas but he’s not “on duty” 24/7. He’s speaking as a Republican on his own time, not in the capacity of Secretary of State.
Did you happen to look at the permitted activities?
Attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
No, you missed the first line of fine print in every law. “Does not apply if the President has the last name Trump”.
Emoluments? What are those?
Requiring congressional confirmation or acting position holder is specifically defined until then? Pshhh.
Appropriations come from Congress? No! I declare I can just illegally steal the budgets specifically allocated for other purposes. Then whine that Congress isn’t immediately allocating replacement funds.
Sure. They didn’t identify him by his title, either. Which is specifically also prohibited to use the title.
Where?
"Less restricted federal employees may not:
Use their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election, by for example:
Note the “for example” doesn’t limit prohibitions to the specific examples either. But it doesn’t matter because the violations are flagrant, there is no gray area, they’re intentional violations because the GOP members in the Senate have shown they do not care about their oaths of office or the rule of law. Like the other million impeachable acts and felonies that have been committed (including those felonies that have been “pardoned” already) associated with this administration.
How is guidance for dealing with violent criminals in the CDC’s purview at all?
Why isn’t the President instead calling for mobilizing the military to deal with these violent terrorists that are assaulting retail employees? Law and Order?
No mention at the TNC of this mass violence occurring across America’s businesses. The president is mute.
Pompeo’s staff said four teams of lawyers, including the state department legal counsel, had reviewed the speech to ensure that it does not cross ethical lines.
If it’s so flagrant, how come the critics cant even agree on why it’s a violation? In 2 articles, I’ve seen 7 different reasons from seven different Democrats, as to why they are outraged over this. If it’s so clear, shouldnt all seven be able to simply say “it breaks the law, right here, this law right here.”? Instead, its “Ahhhhh, the Hatch Act! They’re violating it! I dont know what exactly they’re violating, but they’re clearly not supposed to do this! So they must be breaking the law!”
This is another case of violating customs and traditions people expect, rather than actual laws. They’re not doing what I think they should be doing, so it must be illegal.
Edit: Even the evening news tonight clearly referred to it as “breaking the tradition of top diplomats not participating”.
Obviously, those retail employees arent on Federal property, and there’s no Federal interest to defend.
And, perhaps more obviously, they’re isolated “pop-up” incidents, not something sustained or in any predetermined location. Mobilizing the military would be rather stupid, seeing as how they’re often over even before the local cops arrive, and have yet to develop into something the local cops are unable to handle themselves.
But go ahead, keep taking your random irrelevant pot shots.
(I do also wonder why the CDC is weighing in on this subject, though…)
Terrorism (these violent attacks are specifically for political proposes) is in general a federal interest. However, like the armed invasions of state capitals as well as QAnon, in this case it’s the president prodding on the fringe groups.
And yet the rioting continues.
No, Trump’s CDC has eliminated the need for police, read the CDC’s guidance for dealing with violent terrorists… You’re supposed to go hide in a panic room. That’s why Trump is trying to reduce local police funding, there’s some no need for them anymore. Just follow the Administration’s guidance and hide in a panic room during the riots, too.
In contrast to Biden/Harris who want to increase police funding but also increase accountability. Crazy lefty ideas.