Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PPQue6 t1_ivi6mn1 wrote

Soooo potential Hatch Act and misuse of government property = big no no.

But being the president and violating the Hatch Act and trying to stop the election from getting certified is A ok apparently...

Jesus christ we're so beyond fucked.

528

Kizmo2 t1_ivi82m3 wrote

Clearly a Hatch Act violation.

18

randomnighmare t1_ivi9ca7 wrote

>The Justice Department’s inspector general

Who is

[Michael Horowitz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Horowitz#:~:text=Michael%20Evan%20Horowitz%20(born%20September,United%20States%20Department%20of%20Justice.)

Which is the same guy who, in 2017:

>Horowitz announced in January 2017 that the Inspector General's office would examine evidence related to "allegations of misconduct" regarding FBI Director James B. Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email practices and whether Justice Department employees leaked information improperly during the run-up to the 2016 United States presidential election.[6] In June 2018, Horowitz released his report, concluding that Peter Strzok and other FBI employees "brought discredit to themselves" and to the agency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Horowitz#:~:text=Michael%20Evan%20Horowitz%20(born%20September,United%20States%20Department%20of%20Justice.

Edit

151

BioDriver t1_ivi9qf0 wrote

God this country is so fucked

14

CorpFillip t1_ivibs62 wrote

Sorry, this feels like a very tiny issue compared to damn near everything.

40

NHRADeuce t1_iviclnv wrote

Oh, now the GOP cares about the Hatch Act.

153

ApatheticWithoutTheA t1_ivie8dz wrote

Lol so they’ll pursue this but Trump is out doing rallies to run again for 2024 after committing numerous felonies and crimes against the US.

31

and_dont_blink t1_ivieyy7 wrote

Replying to PPQue6 (#470,515)

I'm a little confused PPQue6, are you saying you're good with the allegations of prosecutors taking financial rewards from groups and want no investigation? Or because the investigation is still ongoing with the former President, no others should be?

How familiar with the Hatch Act are you, or why it was enacted?

−30

kyleofdevry t1_ivig8lh wrote

>prompted by U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins’ appearance at a political fundraiser featuring first lady Jill Biden.

But Ted Cruz can pay $100,000 to a hooker he met at Republican fundraisers so she can run for office?

Shit is wild.

66

cujobob t1_ivih7w4 wrote

Replying to and_dont_blink (#470,959)

Taking financial rewards? The article says she attended a fundraiser related to Jill Biden and she claims she was given permission to do so.

It stands out this is being probed by people unfamiliar with the topic because we have a Supreme Court Justice whose wife literally tried to have an election overturned, a Court all tied to the Federalist Society, and so on, but this woman attended a fundraiser and it’s potentially improper.

I believe it should be looked into if it meets the threshold for impropriety, but it’s still sort of weird that more powerful people can do it all day and night and nothing happens. It’s kind of like saying there’s a speed limit for anyone making under $100,000 a year only. Sure there are different mechanisms in place to hold others accountable, but they’re obviously broken.

25

and_dont_blink t1_ivihzkb wrote

Replying to cujobob (#471,070)

>Taking financial rewards? The article says she attended a fundraiser related to Jill Biden and she claims she was given permission to do so.

...permission by whom? You can't be given permission to violate the Hatch Act.

You also seem to be leaving out her being flown out to Hollywood by CAA for their party (the large talent agency), which yes is taking financial rewards. eg, a contractor doesn't have to physical hand a zoning commissioner money, he can just have a friend do some landscaping work for free or give them free stays in their hotel. That's why those rules exist.

You also seem to be ignoring her use of personal devices for official business, a huge issue for records and transparency and investigations.

−21

cujobob t1_iviiapu wrote

Replying to and_dont_blink (#471,104)

How can I ignore an issue that hasn’t been confirmed to be true? She’s being investigated… hence the title “probing US Attorney.”

You may like to assume that violations occur without evidence, but that’s not how the real world works.

If her meeting with Biden was signed off on, then it is possible her attending a function makes sense. That’s apparently what is being said in her defense. The article states this. Read the article.

17

and_dont_blink t1_ivikf4d wrote

Replying to cujobob (#471,117)

>How can I ignore an issue that hasn’t been confirmed to be true?

I mean, you were willing to discuss one of the allegations, even though we don't know the specific circumstances yet? And we do know she was told to repay the Hollywood agency, per the article.

Yet you seemed to want to avoid the others by not mentioning them and making it only about that one, but not the having her trip paid for by a Hollywood agency or the usage of a personal phone for official business... Considering both the explanations were given by the same types of anonymous sources omitting the others seems a little sus?

> She’s being investigated… hence the title “probing US Attorney.”

We can agree there is nothing wrong with the Justice Department investigating the accusations of violating the Hatch Act?

−20

reddideridoo t1_ivios2t wrote

Like in rectal probing? Daayyyuummn, thats disgusting!

−14

Aazadan t1_ivirz89 wrote

Replying to guachi01 (#470,767)

The problem with the Hatch Act is that it's a joke, since charges largely stem from if the President agrees with the persons violation or not. And as long as the violation is in line with the views of what the President wants, they'll never see it that way.

It's a good idea in theory, but as written it's borderline unenforceable, and has next to no consequences when enforced.

34

DifficultyWithMyLife t1_ivj72m7 wrote

Replying to wsucougs (#471,108)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Defense

>Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. In international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood, and deserves to be recognized as such.

>Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.

5

DifficultyWithMyLife t1_ivj7no8 wrote

So, from what I gather, the Hatch Act involves certain types of government official being nonpartisan by necessity, which sounds good to me.

But what happens when the act of following certain laws becomes partisan in itself (for example, not resorting to vote manipulation)? Most often, you find more corruption in right-wing circles than in left-wing ones. It makes it difficult to act in a manner that is both legal and nonpartisan when the values and actions of the right have become criminal.

To me, this looks like an attempt by the right to get someone out of power just because they don't like her, and it speaks more to their criminality than it does to her non-partisanship or lack thereof.

7

fsr1967 t1_ivj9q64 wrote

All of the GOPers who got away with violating the Hatch Act under Trump should face consequences.

If Rollins violated the Hatch Act, she should also face consequences. As should anyone else under Biden. Let's keep the ethical high ground.

264

TheGrandExquisitor t1_ivj9xyv wrote

So...wait....her appearing at a fundraiser requires full DOJ attention, while Trump gets to walk free after stealing state secrets?

36

ReliefComplex4339 t1_ivjamhy wrote

Wife of Supreme Court judge played an active role on January 6. Watchdogs? Radio silence.

66

Sensate60 t1_ivjbi3e wrote

Replying to randomnighmare (#470,651)

I can't help but wonder if the investigation itself is political. Horowitz is a joke honestly. He is a Republican who has Been and still is a Trump supporter. This quote here: "The inspector general’s office is focusing on Rollins’ attendance at the Democratic National Committee event in July as well as her use of her personal cellphone to conduct official business, according to two people briefed on the investigation, which has been underway for weeks." She's a Democrat supporting other Drmocratic candidates. Seems he's nit picking a trip she took that someone paid for.

40

cujobob t1_ivjbz1t wrote

Replying to and_dont_blink (#471,215)

The weird part here is that you didn’t address the entire point I originally made regarding why people are confused by this. By today’s standards, even what’s accused, would be completely mild compared to what those on the highest court and in other areas of the government are doing. You’re pushing a narrative. I literally stated I believed it should be looked into. Your bias is showing and that’s why you’re being downvoted.

8

and_dont_blink t1_ivjd3db wrote

Replying to cujobob (#472,328)

>The weird part here is that you didn’t address the entire point I originally made regarding why people are confused by this.

I did, and people aren't that confused by it. You said a lot of things, and keep changing what you say they meant. First it was that she hadn't taken anything, then it was ignoring allegations that had no evidence (when it was really you were ignoring allegations she hadn't refuted).

>By today’s standards, even what’s accused, would be completely mild

By whose standards? Corruption and selective prosecution are both real issues, but handwaving whataboutisms doesn't make politics cleaner even if it's one of our own. Again, is your argument that her taking financial favors or violating the Hatch Act is mild and doesn't matter in this day and age? Do you know why we have them? Do you know why government agents are not supposed to be conducting business on personal equipment?

I do actually have a real issue with selective prosecution and "rules for thee but not for me", but handwaving away these things because it's our side does no one any favors, least of all our democracy, and completely cedes any moral high ground.

>You’re pushing a narrative.

Are you projecting a bit there cujobob?

Edit: Ohhhh noooo I've been blocked. Anyways...

−3

Sid15666 t1_ivjdexy wrote

I thought the Hatch Act was repealed after all the violations in the last administration. Should we not be investigating Supreme Court Justices for ethics violations also! Seems they have been bought and payed for by recent decisions.

8

T1442 t1_ivjlr2d wrote

Replying to PPQue6 (#470,515)

Not only that, Trump fired inspector general's investigating his people and replaced them with Trump boot lickers. Biden on the other hand leaves Trump boot lickers in the inspector general spots.

That is what makes this so beyond fucked. Joe Biden is weak.

−5

ImminentZero t1_ivk3qji wrote

Replying to PPQue6 (#470,515)

>and trying to stop the election from getting certified is A ok apparently

Are you under the impression that nothing is being done about this? There are several grand juries convened currently for the exact issue.

3

Re-AnImAt0r t1_ivk92ux wrote

Replying to Sid15666 (#472,391)

please don't resort to whataboutism like Republicans. We're better than that. The law is supposed to be neutral, treating all people equally. If this state's attorney is sucking the Democrat tit she needs to be excised all the same as those sucking the Republican tit.

2

binzoma t1_ivka48n wrote

Replying to catharsis23 (#474,304)

if you dont play by the rules you dont get to bitch when someone else doesnt. we're talking about breaking laws here. you dont solve murder with murder

well.... outside the US you dont solve murder with murder anyway

27

jimberley t1_ivkrgjq wrote

Why is she being investigated? Twice? I wonder…

>“Rollins was a controversial pick to be Massachusetts’ top federal law enforcer and she faced stiffed opposition from congressional Republicans for her progressive approach to crime. As district attorney for Suffolk County, which includes Boston, Rollins pushed ambitious criminal justice changes, most notably a policy not to prosecute certain low-level crimes such as shoplifting.”

2

Odd-Employment2517 t1_ivku2ml wrote

Replying to catharsis23 (#474,511)

I think you mean the American Republican, fixed it for you. Don't forget they claimed Obama would ban all guns for 8 years banned none without grandfathering and the supposed pro gun Trump banned over 400,000 guns in 4 years without grandfathering and is still cheered by supposed pro gun folks

20

catharsis23 t1_ivl0vl8 wrote

Replying to Odd-Employment2517 (#475,553)

Republicans dont give a flying fuck if they are called hypocrites. And that is basically a super power compared to every Democrat that curls up and whines whenever there's a mean NYT op-ed about them

−23

Sid15666 t1_ivl29p2 wrote

Replying to Re-AnImAt0r (#474,267)

I agree, I am covered by the Hatch Act in my job so I am quite familiar with what you can and can not do. If she violated it good prosecute her but it needs applied evenly.

5

mcs_987654321 t1_ivlw7ja wrote

Replying to randomnighmare (#470,651)

Meh: no idea what this guy’s deal is, but he’s clearly got the education and professional experience you’d want for someone in that role, and has served under 3 presidents.

None of the statements about Clinton, Comey, or Strzok are inaccurate, nor are they even especially strong (like yeah: don’t gossip about the current president via text on your FBI phone, it’s a bad look).

One section below in that that Wikipedia link there are details about how he found no political motivation behind Crossfire Hurricane investigation. >The report found that the FBI had a legal "authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication" to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser

Not trying to hype the guy up or anything, but looking at a rough snapshot of his highest profile actions, I see no obvious basis for criticism.

2

mcs_987654321 t1_ivlx3f9 wrote

Replying to Sensate60 (#472,304)

But none of that indicates that Horowitz is a joke, or that he’s politically motivated - I commented more extensively above, but he seems like a pretty by the book/down the line civil servant.

What IS likely political is that someone was clearly keeping a very close eye on Rollins’s comings and goings, and reporting any hint of impropriety to his office. He doesn’t have much option but to follow up on that stuff - it’s clearly petty bullshit, but ignoring it would be a political call.

2

mcs_987654321 t1_ivlye0t wrote

Replying to Sensate60 (#472,315)

That’s not true - there have definitely been investigations of Republicans too.

That said: I strongly suspect that the DOJ gets flooded with plausible reports/tips of improper activities by Dems - petty bullshit like this being a prime example.

They can’t just NOT investigate reliable reports because that would be politically biased, and then the GOP PR machine gets to leak the story.

It’s a cheap political attack, and fucks w the DOJ’s ability to focus on other, serious investigations, but doesn’t necessarily point to thinks being screwed up within the DOJ itself.

2

venmome10cents t1_ivpqejm wrote

Replying to NoHalf2998 (#478,593)

>the DOJ since Trump has only targeted Democratic folks

​

Maybe just admit that your post was an exaggeration / misinformation. * (edit: this comment from earlier in thread wasn't you. my bad!)*

1

CorpFillip t1_ivqbq75 wrote

Replying to CorpFillip (#470,776)

I wrote ‘sorry’ because I (we?) want all improprieties to be punished. I’m sure we do; thats why we talk about them, why we are upset to know them. But, a mere association with someone at an event?

It should not make the news above people arguing to dissolve the limits of power & others threatening to attack other Americans because of what someone else said they might do.

1