Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (30) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84364 
Subject: Re: MAGA RETRIBURTION
Date: 09/12/24 3:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 13
Don't know, and don't care. I could "reorganize" their departments and eliminate their jobs.

Could you? If one of those folks is now working at State, and you "reorganize" their department and eliminate just their job, you probably wouldn't be able to make that stick. Not only would it be a violation of the Civil Service laws, but it's probably a First Amendment violation as well. Government workers are allowed to speak their minds on things outside of the workplace without being penalized for it.

What they did directly interfered with an election (a partisan act and implicit violation of the Hatch Act) and abused the trust the public puts in people in these positions.

Did it? They didn't "interfere" with an election in the sense of trying to impede or stop the conduct of the balloting or the tabulation of votes. They sought to change public perception on a matter of public concern, to be sure - which could have an impact on the outcome of an election. But not interfering with an election.

Nor is it in any way a violation of the Hatch Act. That Act prohibits federal workers from engaging in specific defined campaign activities. It in no way prevents them from making public statements on matters of public concern. Public workers can't work a phone bank or appear at a campaign event - but they can write an op-ed talking various issues and advocating certain viewpoints on those issues, even if the impact of people being persuaded by those views might end up affecting their voting decisions. Officials do it all the time - they're constantly making the rounds on the Sunday shows and giving speeches about matters within their expertise.

It's very simple. If you can't trust them to report honestly on what they know, you can't trust them, period. That means they're liabilities in the intel world.

Why? How do you know they didn't genuinely believe what they wrote? Even if you believe that, could you prove it? And if they turned out to be wrong, does that mean you pull their security clearances? Is being wrong about an issue like that grounds for having your security clearance revoked? Or having a counterparty break an otherwise legally binding contract?

Look, it's one thing to call for retribution - but generally it's really, really hard for the government to impose sanctions against anyone without following due process and having a legal basis for doing it.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (30) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community