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

[faithful_servant]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

That made me smile...

 

[faithful_servant]

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?

The Hatch Act is in place for very good reasons and someone in Castro's position should know that very well and know EXACTLY what he could and couldn't say. I really don't care that he offered his opinion, I do care that he was either grossly out of touch with the law or or grossly disrespectful of the law. His attitude and/or aptitude are what this reveals more than anything.

 

[ludin]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

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.

They are just doing what Obama does ignore laws he doesn't like and try to change them by fiat. pen and a phone is all that he needs.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

What are you going to do? We both agree firing is out. A letter to his record is the same thing as doing nothing.

No, it isn't. Some form of punishment is necessary for someone who breaks the law. You don't get to get out of it because you are one of the Beautiful People.

Suspension is kinda out for his position. A fine for not being completely clear on a law kinda an overreaction.

Actually in this case I think it would be wholly appropriate.

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

What government employees just learned (again) was that the rules will be applied to them, but not to political appointees who are protected.

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.

What, you mean like if one of them had anti-Obama bumper stickers and bought Chik Fil A for their co-workers, or if they criticized the President on Facebook?


One law for us. Another law (if any law) for them.

 

[apdst]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Random buzzword alert!



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".

Wrhat if I'm on the road for three hours after my last inspection and in that time, my brake lights stop working and a DOT cop notices before I do? At that point, I'm getting pulled over, getting a roadside inspection and a citation. Brake lights--not break--can stop working for a number of reasons. Internationals used to have an air switch that controlled the brake lights and they were notorious for not working all of a sudden. There's no intention to operate with inoperable brake lights, hell, last time I looked at them, they were working, but I can't use that defense. And believe me, in that scenario, the driver is getting a citation.

 

[jmotivator]

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?

And a drunk person doesn't necessarily know they are unfit to operate a vehicle...

He knew of the hatch act and tried to find a way around the hatch act. He's guilty.

 

[danarhea]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Here's the way I see it. Is this worthy of being charged with a crime? No. Is it worthy of not being picked as a VP? Yes. Castro has demonstrated that he not up to the job.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

I'm very curious as to how federal law can prevent a person from expressing his opinion about government. Doesn't that violate the 1st Amendment? I understand not wanting coercive forces in appointed government positions, but I wonder how it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution.

 

[apdst]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

I'm very curious as to how federal law can prevent a person from expressing his opinion about government. Doesn't that violate the 1st Amendment? I understand not wanting coercive forces in appointed government positions, but I wonder how it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution.

Castro can say anything he wants, in his time.

 

[Roadvirus]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

:doh



Laws. They're for the little people.

He'd fit very well into the Clinton Crime family!

 

[Roadvirus]

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...

But plagiarize (or not) from another person's speech? Attack! Attack! Attack! Melaina Trump is evil! Attack!

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

The very definition of tyranny is when the ruling elite have a different set of laws from the people.

 

[blackjack50]

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?

People don't realize that grapefruit are a safe and excellent means of free data and wireless connectivity. Like bananas are free electricity.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

:doh



Laws. They're for the little people.

Yet another example showing how corrupt the federal government has become. Today's events make Richard Nixon look like a Boy Scout.

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Yet another example showing how corrupt the federal government has become. Today's events make Richard Nixon look like a Boy Scout.

It is starting to resemble the drama of Ancient Rome.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

 

[Lovebug]

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?

Yeah, some need to be crucified for making some blooper about what magazine they read, and we can depict them hanging from a rope, while we spin endlessly for others.
Lets face it, some are just above the law. While most would be fired or demoted for the smallest mistakes, we have no qualms about promoting choice elite.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Clinton VP Contender Won’t Be Punished, Said He Didn’t ‘Intend’ To Break Federal

Lets face it, some are just above the law. While most would be fired or demoted for the smallest mistakes, we have no qualms about promoting choice elite.

The idea that only the "choice elite" don't face repercussions for violation of rules/laws is downright silly. From getting out of speeding tickets, to health code violations in restaurants to passing voter id legislation which violates federal law, people regularly do not face serious repercussions for transgressions. The mentality that "only the elite" can get out of consequences simply does not match reality.