Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The President & the Executive Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The President & the Executive Branch Discuss Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation at the Political Forums; Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation The Office of the Special Counsel on Wednesday announced it was citing ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2012, 02:27 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,080
Thanks: 2,235
Thanked 35,316 Times in 20,260 Posts
Default Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

Quote:
The Office of the Special Counsel on Wednesday announced it was citing Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius for illegally making political comments at an official event, which is a violation of the federal Hatch Act.

The counsel found that she made the comments when delivering the keynote speech at the Human Rights Campaign Gala in February.

After the apparent Hatch Act violation emerged, her office reclassified the trip from official to political and she reimbursed the government for associated expenses.
How about that?...You get found to have broken the law, so you just CHANGE the facts and "Voila"...It never happened...

Quote:
The law prohibits most federal employees from "engaging in political activity while on duty," according to the special counsel, but some officials, such as cabinet secretaries, are permitted to make political statements in their personal capacity. The Office of Special Counsel is an independent government agency which can investigate and prosecute.

The counsel found that "the Secretary departed from her prepared outline" when she told attendees at the event, "it's hugely important to make sure that we reelect the President and elect a Democratic governor here in North Carolina."

In a seven-paragraph email to the special counsel's office, Sebelius concluded that "I regret making statements that converted my participation in the event from official to political. As I have also explained, keeping the roles straight can be a difficult task, particularly on mixed trips that involve both campaign and official stops on the same day. Since this incident, I have met with the ethics attorneys at the Department to ensure that I have an accurate understanding of what types of statements are prohibited at an official event."

In her letter, Sebelius took issue with the special counsel pursuing the "minor" issue to this point, rather than considering it rectified when the trip was reclassified and expense repaid.

"I believe that you should have concluded that any violation was corrected when the event was reclassified as political," she wrote. "I believe that you should have concluded that the consequence of my going 'off script' at an official event was to change the nature of my appearance for cost reimbursement purposes only."

A HHS spokesman issued a statement which made no mention of the secretary's regret.

"The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) released its findings today on extemporaneous remarks made by the Secretary on February 25, 2012 at a Human Rights Campaign (HRC) event," a statement from a HHS spokesman read. "As was previously announced and at the direction of the Secretary, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reclassified the event as political and the U.S. Treasury was reimbursed for all travel expenses."

The special counsel's report specifies that it now goes to Obama for "appropriate action."
I'm guessing a slap on the back and a raise...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2012, 02:31 PM
MrLiberty's Avatar
professional curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,506
Thanks: 21,953
Thanked 18,612 Times in 11,938 Posts
Default Re: Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

just another day in the Chicago style politics that have invaded Washington since the arrival of mob boss obama.
__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2012, 02:40 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,513
Thanks: 22,404
Thanked 18,920 Times in 13,935 Posts
Default Re: Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

How about that?...You get found to have broken the law, so you just CHANGE the facts and "Voila"...It never happened...

I'm guessing a slap on the back and a raise...
What are you so mad about? She made a couple of comments on a trip and because of those comments she paid for the entire trip herself. It's not like she killed a friggin puppy or something. Geeez
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2012, 02:45 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,290
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,067 Times in 5,535 Posts
Default Re: Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
What are you so mad about? She made a couple of comments on a trip and because of those comments she paid for the entire trip herself. It's not like she killed a friggin puppy or something. Geeez
Because she broke the law and she thinks that she can white-wash it with money. Isn't that the kind of thing that liberals have always fought against?? The use of money to subvert the legal process?? Why the change in focus?? She broke the law and she should pay the penalty as indicated by the law. She doesn't get to simply buy her way out of this. If someone stole $100,000 from you, would you be satisified if they simply paid it back or would you want the legal penalties to be applied as well?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2012, 02:50 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,513
Thanks: 22,404
Thanked 18,920 Times in 13,935 Posts
Default Re: Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
Because she broke the law and she thinks that she can white-wash it with money. Isn't that the kind of thing that liberals have always fought against?? The use of money to subvert the legal process?? Why the change in focus?? She broke the law and she should pay the penalty as indicated by the law. She doesn't get to simply buy her way out of this. If someone stole $100,000 from you, would you be satisified if they simply paid it back or would you want the legal penalties to be applied as well?
Look at what she said and tell me how much time she should serve in prison.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2012, 03:01 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,290
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,067 Times in 5,535 Posts
Default Re: Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
Look at what she said and tell me how much time she should serve in prison.
Is prison time the prescribed punishment for violating the Hatch Act?? I haven't looked into it, but you either have looked into it or are simply pulling crap out of your butt to post.

Here's the official line on the penalties prescribed for violating the Hatch Act:
Quote:
Removal is the only penalty authorized for violation of the Hatch Act, under 5 U.S.C.S. § 1505. The Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) has plenary jurisdiction under § 1505 to determine after a hearing whether the violation warrants the removal of the officer or employee from his office or employment. The Board considers whether removal is appropriate on the basis of seriousness of the violation. The Board takes into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, including: (1) the nature of the offense and the extent of the employee’s participation; (2) the employee’s motive and intent; (3) whether the employee received the advice of counsel regarding the activities at issue; (4) whether the employee ceased the activities at issue; (5) the employee’s past employment record; and (6) the political coloring of the employee’s activities. The decision as to whether removal is warranted is a matter of administrative discretion. Thus, a reviewing court will not reverse the Board’s decision unless it concludes that the decision constituted an abuse of discretion or was not in accordance with the law or was unsupported by substantial evidence or was obtained without procedures required by law, rule or regulation. The penalty provision in the Hatch Political Activity Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 1506(a), clearly gives the employer the choice of removing the employee in question “from his office or employment,” or forfeiting federal funds equal to two years’ pay at the rate or amount the employee was receiving at the time of the violation. Further, for 18 months after his removal from employment, federal funds also will be forfeited if the employee is appointed to an office or employment with a state or local agency within the same state. With respect to federal employees, 5 U.S.C.S. § 7326 provides that an individual who violates the Hatch Act, shall be removed from his position, and the funds appropriated for the position from which removed may not thereafter be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of no fewer than 30 days’ suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the board. Since, removal is the only penalty which may be imposed on a state employee in violation of the Hatch Act and if the Merit Systems Protection Board determines that removal of a state employee is not warranted, it may not impose any penalty. Moreover, a state agency need not remove a violator unless it wishes to avoid the loss of federal funding. In contrast, 5 U.S.C.S. § 7326 requires the board to impose a penalty on federal employees, consisting of not less than 30 days’ suspension without pay, even where the board determines that the violation does not warrant removal. In other words, although a state employee may avoid a penalty for violating the Hatch Act, a federal employee cannot avoid being penalized.
Nothing there about simply changing the rules and paying back the money that was spent. If she is found guilty of this, then the penalty is at least 30 days suspension without pay.

Are you OK with a citizen of this country violating our laws and then simply buying thier way out of that violation?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2012, 09:28 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,513
Thanks: 22,404
Thanked 18,920 Times in 13,935 Posts
Default Re: Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
Is prison time the prescribed punishment for violating the Hatch Act?? I haven't looked into it, but you either have looked into it or are simply pulling crap out of your butt to post.

Here's the official line on the penalties prescribed for violating the Hatch Act:


Nothing there about simply changing the rules and paying back the money that was spent. If she is found guilty of this, then the penalty is at least 30 days suspension without pay.

Are you OK with a citizen of this country violating our laws and then simply buying thier way out of that violation?
OK Barney. How about J-Walking? Can we get them on that?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 05:54 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,290
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,067 Times in 5,535 Posts
Default Re: Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
OK Barney. How about J-Walking? Can we get them on that?
This is a more serious offence than j-walking. When you have a crime that carries the penalties listed above, it's serious stuff.

Once again - Are you OK with a person buying their way out of a criminal charge?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 08:30 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,513
Thanks: 22,404
Thanked 18,920 Times in 13,935 Posts
Default Re: Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
This is a more serious offence than j-walking. When you have a crime that carries the penalties listed above, it's serious stuff.

Once again - Are you OK with a person buying their way out of a criminal charge?
WWAD? What would Andy Do?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2012, 09:31 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,615
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,296 Times in 9,272 Posts
Post Re: Special counsel cites Sebelius for Hatch Act violation

Bush tortured people.
And lied to the American people about it.

But THIS we need to get upset over...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act, cites, counsel, for, hatch, sebelius, special, violation

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0