• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal Law (1 Viewer)

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
76,656
Reaction score
40,648
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:doh

The White House on Tuesday announced they would not seek to punish Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro, despite knowing he broke the law....

In his reply to OSC report, Castro admitted that he made a mistake but also said he did not intend to break the law....

It has been widely reported that Castro is on the shortlist to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate.

Laws. They're for the little people.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

:doh



Laws. They're for the little people.

Bingo.

I wonder if I can forget that robbery and theft is illegal?


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

:doh
Laws. They're for the little people.

Good thing we're keeping a tight leash on politicians from making personal political statements to the press. Not much of that going around this year.

Bingo.

I wonder if I can forget that robbery and theft is illegal?

Sure, if you can prove that it was unintentional and there was no malice on your part. Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

:doh



Laws. They're for the little people.

As long as one did not intend (according to their own word?) to break the law, expresses remorse (for not havng intent?) and are politically useful then the actual letter of the law can be ignored. Obama says that is "the right thing to do". ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

:doh



Laws. They're for the little people.

Aw, that's sweet. He didn't mean to break the law.

I'll bet OJ didn't mean to kill Ron Goldman, either. No wonder he was acquitted.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

:doh



Laws. They're for the little people.

Context, since you did not seem to want to bother with any: On April 4th, Castro was interviewed by yahoo news. The interviewer asked about the election. While stressing that what he was saying was his personal opinion, he still offered his personal opinion. He thought making it clear it was a personal opinion was enough for the hatch Act. It was not. OSC recommended that this be used to remind people of how the Hatch act works. That is a pretty reasonable reaction. Fining or firing some one for flubbing an interview, that would be kinda an over reaction dontcha think?
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

:doh



Laws. They're for the little people.

Well, Castro's approach to the office, and the laws that govern it, certainly explain why Hillary Clinton may have had him on the short list.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Good thing we're keeping a tight leash on politicians from making personal political statements to the press. Not much of that going around this year.



Sure, if you can prove that it was unintentional and there was no malice on your part. Good luck!

It is a better thing that we know our high level (executive?) appointees are simply unelected politicians with an agenda. The myth that the head of a federal agency or department is "above politics" has been busted (again).
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

As long as one did not intend (according to ther own word?) to break the law, express remorse (for not havng intent?) and are politically useful then the actual letter of the law can be ignored. Obama says that is "the right thing to do". ;)

Actually, that is not what happened. It is clear from the interview itself he was trying to follow the law, he just got it a little wrong.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Context, since you did not seem to want to bother with any: On April 4th, Castro was interviewed by yahoo news. The interviewer asked about the election. While stressing that what he was saying was his personal opinion, he still offered his personal opinion. He thought making it clear it was a personal opinion was enough for the hatch Act. It was not. OSC recommended that this be used to remind people of how the Hatch act works. That is a pretty reasonable reaction. Fining or firing some one for flubbing an interview, that would be kinda an over reaction dontcha think?

Maybe or maybe it would show that the govt takes the laws seriously(something the Obama administration has shown no desire to do so far) just the optics of Obama letting one of his own off the hook right before he possibly becomes the VP candidate should have been enough for a reprimand
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Context, since you did not seem to want to bother with any: On April 4th, Castro was interviewed by yahoo news. The interviewer asked about the election. While stressing that what he was saying was his personal opinion, he still offered his personal opinion. He thought making it clear it was a personal opinion was enough for the hatch Act. It was not. OSC recommended that this be used to remind people of how the Hatch act works. That is a pretty reasonable reaction. Fining or firing some one for flubbing an interview, that would be kinda an over reaction dontcha think?

I agree with you to a degree, but I have to actually side with others in terms of the "little people" comments. A much lower level government employee mistakenly violating the hatch act in a clearly visible manner is highly unlikely to escape any punishment what so ever. Escape fining or firing? Yes, even though it's one of the few things that likely could get you terminated as a federal employee. But no punishment what so ever? Be it a disciplinary letter or action which typically precludes you from potential promotion and/or bonuses for a period of time and other such things? I just don't think that likely.

Ultimately this isn't a huge deal in my eyes as, like you said, it's a minor violation done in a benign fashion. However, much like I said the plagiarism talk of the past day wasn't really a big thing but would be a legitimate gripe for a bit of time, I can see a very legitimate argument/gripe being made if Castro is chosen that you have a ticket with two individuals who were above suffering the same fate as the "little people" in government.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Context, since you did not seem to want to bother with any: On April 4th, Castro was interviewed by yahoo news. The interviewer asked about the election. While stressing that what he was saying was his personal opinion, he still offered his personal opinion. He thought making it clear it was a personal opinion was enough for the hatch Act. It was not. OSC recommended that this be used to remind people of how the Hatch act works. That is a pretty reasonable reaction. Fining or firing some one for flubbing an interview, that would be kinda an over reaction dontcha think?

I think it's inappropriate to completely ignore - I agree that you don't have to fire for this, but there should be some actual discernible punishment of some kind, however focused. "Woops My Bad" shouldn't, actually, be something that those in power can use to dismiss breaking the law.

This would not have been the result for a Federal Employee who did the same thing, but who wasn't a Democrat politico in a Democrat administration, or a favorite, or a potential VP pick.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Good thing we're keeping a tight leash on politicians from making personal political statements to the press. Not much of that going around this year.



Sure, if you can prove that it was unintentional and there was no malice on your part. Good luck!

I forgot that I left the nuclear secrets on a private email server. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Context, since you did not seem to want to bother with any: On April 4th, Castro was interviewed by yahoo news. The interviewer asked about the election. While stressing that what he was saying was his personal opinion, he still offered his personal opinion. He thought making it clear it was a personal opinion was enough for the hatch Act. It was not. OSC recommended that this be used to remind people of how the Hatch act works. That is a pretty reasonable reaction. Fining or firing some one for flubbing an interview, that would be kinda an over reaction dontcha think?

Breach of trust, and government elitism, are clearly very important issues to voters this election cycle.

As the average citizen struggles with the everyday issues of life, a powerful leader of a powerful government agency, who is supposed to represent ALL people, uses the power of his office, backed by the Seal of that office, to denigrate a candidate 10's of millions support. I think "oops" rings rather hallow to the average voter, assuming they even know about it, or care.

What people appear tired of tolerating is the ego of these government elites, who confirm on a regular basis that they operate with a different set of rules. I would guess that scrutiny has everyone scrabbling for new rules to live by.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Context, since you did not seem to want to bother with any: On April 4th, Castro was interviewed by yahoo news. The interviewer asked about the election. While stressing that what he was saying was his personal opinion, he still offered his personal opinion. He thought making it clear it was a personal opinion was enough for the hatch Act. It was not. OSC recommended that this be used to remind people of how the Hatch act works. That is a pretty reasonable reaction. Fining or firing some one for flubbing an interview, that would be kinda an over reaction dontcha think?

Only for the political elite.

If my brake lights stop working and I don't know, I can't say to the DOT cop, "I didn't intend to drive down the road with no brake lights". No, I'm not only getting fined, but I'm getting a 10 point out of service violation, which is multiplied by 3 I'm the first 12 months and 30 points in my CSA score is when trucking companies start firing people. But, I'm one of the little people.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

I agree with you to a degree, but I have to actually side with others in terms of the "little people" comments. A much lower level government employee mistakenly violating the hatch act in a clearly visible manner is highly unlikely to escape any punishment what so ever. Escape fining or firing? Yes, even though it's one of the few things that likely could get you terminated as a federal employee. But no punishment what so ever? Be it a disciplinary letter or action which typically precludes you from potential promotion and/or bonuses for a period of time and other such things? I just don't think that likely.

That would not even really be a punishment for some one in Castro's position. And the level of media exposure for him vs the little guy makes how they are handled a little different(ie the little guy is not going to be interviewed often, so far fewer opportunities to screw up).

Ultimately this isn't a huge deal in my eyes as, like you said, it's a minor violation done in a benign fashion. However, much like I said the plagiarism talk of the past day wasn't really a big thing but would be a legitimate gripe for a bit of time, I can see a very legitimate argument/gripe being made if Castro is chosen that you have a ticket with two individuals who were above suffering the same fate as the "little people" in government.

My reaction to both the plagiarism thing and this are about the same too: meh. My only comments on the plagiarism thing is to criticize those trying to blame democrats for it. With this, since he actually made the effort to follow the rules, just misunderstood them, and it is an easy mistake to make, I am over it. I just felt it was important to add the context, since from the OP, you would think what he did was much more significant.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

I think it's inappropriate to completely ignore - I agree that you don't have to fire for this, but there should be some actual discernible punishment of some kind, however focused. "Woops My Bad" shouldn't, actually, be something that those in power can use to dismiss breaking the law.

This would not have been the result for a Federal Employee who did the same thing, but who wasn't a Democrat politico in a Democrat administration, or a favorite, or a potential VP pick.

What are you going to do? We both agree firing is out. A letter to his record is the same thing as doing nothing. Suspension is kinda out for his position. A fine for not being completely clear on a law kinda an overreaction. That is pretty much the list of what can be done. I actually like the idea of, since he made it a point to try and follow the law(just got it wrong in a benign way), use it as a teaching point for government employees: "Here is what he did, it was wrong. This is what you have to do."

The important part, and the part that bears repeating, is not that he said "woops, my bad", but that he was clearly, as demonstrated by the interview itself, trying to separate the office with his personal opinion, which is what that part of the Hatch act is for. I think that, based on that, for a first offense, even those lower Federal Employees would have gotten off for that. On a first offense, I would say that in that situation, I would hope they got no more than a talking to.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Breach of trust, and government elitism, are clearly very important issues to voters this election cycle.

As the average citizen struggles with the everyday issues of life, a powerful leader of a powerful government agency, who is supposed to represent ALL people, uses the power of his office, backed by the Seal of that office, to denigrate a candidate 10's of millions support. I think "oops" rings rather hallow to the average voter, assuming they even know about it, or care.

What people appear tired of tolerating is the ego of these government elites, who confirm on a regular basis that they operate with a different set of rules. I would guess that scrutiny has everyone scrabbling for new rules to live by.

He was asked his opinion in an interview. He separated his office from his opinion, in the interview. Let's not get carried away...
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Only for the political elite.

Random buzzword alert!

If my brake lights stop working and I don't know, I can't say to the DOT cop, "I didn't intend to drive down the road with no brake lights". No, I'm not only getting fined, but I'm getting a 10 point out of service violation, which is multiplied by 3 I'm the first 12 months and 30 points in my CSA score is when trucking companies start firing people. But, I'm one of the little people.

Not the right analogy. Let me fix it for you: If your breaklight does not work, you buy a new one. Cop watches you put new one in, but when you pull away, it does not work. You installed it(somehow) not quite right. In that situation, I do not think you are getting fined, ticketed or anything other than "you got the breaklight in wrong".
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

It seems anyone involved with the clintons has trouble understanding the law. And yet...people believe she should be president.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

It seems anyone involved with the clintons has trouble understanding the law. And yet...people believe she should be president.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

How're you getting your grapefruit to do that? Mine won't do it. My blender will, but the grapefruit just smokes out a system error. Should this be in the technical assistance forum?
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

He was asked his opinion in an interview. He separated his office from his opinion, in the interview. Let's not get carried away...

Not getting carried away. Just commenting on the facts.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

:doh



Laws. They're for the little people.

1) Precedent is a beautiful thing.
2) So is choosing a VP in sync with the boss.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

...

...

Not the right analogy. Let me fix it for you: If your breaklight does not work, you buy a new one. Cop watches you put new one in, but when you pull away, it does not work. You installed it(somehow) not quite right. In that situation, I do not think you are getting fined, ticketed or anything other than "you got the breaklight in wrong".

th


Must hurt to do cuz it was painful to watch.
 
Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

th


Must hurt to do cuz it was painful to watch.

Not nearly as painful as watching people try and make a big deal out of something that is literally nothing. It reminds me of the people who are trying to make a big deal out of the "white escalator".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom