Terri4Trump
Verified User
My God, you faggots are still crying about Trump using the white house?
Your fathers should bitchslap all your bitch asses
Your fathers should bitchslap all your bitch asses
Accepting Nomination From White House Lawn Violates Hatch Act
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
DT disregards all laws he thinks he can get away with breaking. He figures he's rich and powerful so he's got special privileges. He's just a grown up spoiled rich brat.
So far my favorites are the Hatch Act and raking in taxpayer dollars while in office.
That's the same bullshit lines the LW weenies used since the 1990s about the Clintons.
Not my job, but if I was to lay a money bet, Trump will be dead of old age before all the pending court cases against him will be over....and he'll never see the inside of a jail unless he's visiting one of the kids.
BTW, it's been my experience that sock puppets frequently used end up revealing their alternate egos within six weeks...especially later in the evening. What is your opinion on the subject?
That's the same bullshit lines the LW weenies used since the 1990s about the Clintons.
Not my job, but if I was to lay a money bet, Trump will be dead of old age before all the pending court cases against him will be over....and he'll never see the inside of a jail unless he's visiting one of the kids.
BTW, it's been my experience that sock puppets frequently used end up revealing their alternate egos within six weeks...especially later in the evening. What is your opinion on the subject?
You seem obsessed with sock puppets. I will still be coldjoint in six weeks and you will still avoid the questions you are asked.
Terri4Trump
Verified User
I'm sorry, are those Republicans out their looting and burning cities and destroying property and killing cops and terrorizing neighborhoods?
Your sort of utter denial and willingness to stick your head in the sand is exactly why Trump will win.
Terri4Trump
Verified User
This whole thread is based on a lie.
"There was nothing unlawful or improper about Trump's acceptance speech"
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...ul-or-improper-about-trumps-acceptance-speech
The talking heads and pundits attacking President Trump for giving his Republican National Convention acceptance speech from the White House lawn need to actually read the law. The Hatch Act is a precisely written statute — as is appropriate for a law that limits the indisputable First Amendment rights of federal workers — and it supports the president.
First and foremost, the Hatch Act explicitly exempts the president and vice president from its strictures. It defines “employee,” to which the Hatch Act’s restrictions apply, as someone “other than the President or Vice President.” This is constitutionally required because the president is a co-equal branch of the federal government and Congress can no more limit or restrain his political activities than he could limit theirs.
As a result, President Trump was entirely within his legal rights to give his acceptance speech from the South Lawn of the White House. And any members of the White House staff who may have assisted and supported the president on Thursday night also were in compliance with the Hatch Act.
Although the Hatch Act prohibits a wide swath of federal workers — including many of the individuals who work in the White House — from engaging in political activities while on duty or “in any room or building occupied,” the White House lawn is not such a room or building. Had Congress intended to extend Hatch Act restrictions to entire government installations or compounds, it could and would have said so.
In addition, there is a further exemption from the relevant Hatch Act restrictions for White House staff members whose work and responsibilities continue beyond normal working hours and while on travel — which includes many if not most of them. These individuals are permitted to engage in political activities while on duty and in a federal room or building, as long as “the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.” The president has stated that the Republican National Committee would be picking up the tab for his White House event (and the fireworks afterwards).
Similarly, the attacks on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for delivering a convention speech from Jerusalem, endorsing President Trump’s reelection, are similarly misplaced based on these same provisions. In addition to exempting senior White House staff from Hatch Act restrictions on political activities while on duty or in a federal building, Section 7324(b) of the Hatch Act also exempts federal officials who are confirmed by the Senate and who “determine[] policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.” This language includes, at a minimum, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other members of the president’s cabinet.
Such officials cannot, of course, use their “official authority or influence” to affect an election’s result, but the State Department has made clear that Secretary Pompeo spoke in his private capacity from Israel, not as secretary. Consequently, his speech was entirely consistent with his legal and ethical responsibilities.
Indeed, to the extent that Secretary Pompeo’s critics claim that he has somehow acted unethically or improperly, even if not illegally, it is significant that Congress itself made clear, in the Hatch Act’s first section, that federal employees — which includes cabinet members — “should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation.” The Hatch Act is a technical law to be applied as far as it goes and no further.
"There was nothing unlawful or improper about Trump's acceptance speech"
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...ul-or-improper-about-trumps-acceptance-speech
The talking heads and pundits attacking President Trump for giving his Republican National Convention acceptance speech from the White House lawn need to actually read the law. The Hatch Act is a precisely written statute — as is appropriate for a law that limits the indisputable First Amendment rights of federal workers — and it supports the president.
First and foremost, the Hatch Act explicitly exempts the president and vice president from its strictures. It defines “employee,” to which the Hatch Act’s restrictions apply, as someone “other than the President or Vice President.” This is constitutionally required because the president is a co-equal branch of the federal government and Congress can no more limit or restrain his political activities than he could limit theirs.
As a result, President Trump was entirely within his legal rights to give his acceptance speech from the South Lawn of the White House. And any members of the White House staff who may have assisted and supported the president on Thursday night also were in compliance with the Hatch Act.
Although the Hatch Act prohibits a wide swath of federal workers — including many of the individuals who work in the White House — from engaging in political activities while on duty or “in any room or building occupied,” the White House lawn is not such a room or building. Had Congress intended to extend Hatch Act restrictions to entire government installations or compounds, it could and would have said so.
In addition, there is a further exemption from the relevant Hatch Act restrictions for White House staff members whose work and responsibilities continue beyond normal working hours and while on travel — which includes many if not most of them. These individuals are permitted to engage in political activities while on duty and in a federal room or building, as long as “the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.” The president has stated that the Republican National Committee would be picking up the tab for his White House event (and the fireworks afterwards).
Similarly, the attacks on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for delivering a convention speech from Jerusalem, endorsing President Trump’s reelection, are similarly misplaced based on these same provisions. In addition to exempting senior White House staff from Hatch Act restrictions on political activities while on duty or in a federal building, Section 7324(b) of the Hatch Act also exempts federal officials who are confirmed by the Senate and who “determine[] policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.” This language includes, at a minimum, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other members of the president’s cabinet.
Such officials cannot, of course, use their “official authority or influence” to affect an election’s result, but the State Department has made clear that Secretary Pompeo spoke in his private capacity from Israel, not as secretary. Consequently, his speech was entirely consistent with his legal and ethical responsibilities.
Indeed, to the extent that Secretary Pompeo’s critics claim that he has somehow acted unethically or improperly, even if not illegally, it is significant that Congress itself made clear, in the Hatch Act’s first section, that federal employees — which includes cabinet members — “should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation.” The Hatch Act is a technical law to be applied as far as it goes and no further.
The fact you overlooked the answer and focused on the sock side comment is interesting. Of course you can still be "coldjoint" in six weeks or more. Why would you want to change?
I answered the question. Are you expecting me to file the charges and prosecute the cases?
Meh. My crystal ball is out of order today so you'll have to stick with yours.
Dude, you can hold your breath too but your obsession with something that is in the future will still be noticed.
You said shit about the future. You said Trump was guilty of crimes. I asked you to prove it. You are quite dishonest.
That fact you are now lying weakens your argument. What I said:
If you'd start seeing what people are writing instead of seeing what you want to see, maybe you would be better off.
Suck on this
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/67307856/1269230016.jpg.0.jpg)
He didn't "Make America Great" during his first term and you want people to give him a second chance?
I thought the new slogan was "Make America Great Again, Again."
Please let the class know specifically how Democrat-run cities differ from Repub-run cities, Mr. Earl. By that I mean using examples and statistics.