Too bad we never receive any
proof of this conspiracy theory, because if we did, we might know just how very
stupid (and inaccurate) it is!
According to the federal Office
of Personnel Management, there are three categories of U.S. federal employees:
Most federal officers and employees are now generally free to engage in a broad range of partisan political activities on their own "free time" or
"off-duty" hours. The provisions of the "Hatch Act Amendments of 1993" removed most of the
restrictions on voluntary, free-time activities by federal employees in the executive branch
of Government for or on behalf of partisan candidates or political parties, while providing more express prohibitions regarding on-the-job politics in federal
offices. - The competitive service that includes the majority of civil service positions, meaning employees are selected based on merit after a competitive hiring process for positions that are open to all applicants.
All officers and employees in the executive branch, other than the President and Vice President, are generally restricted by the Act in the following ways:
(1) They may not use their "official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."
(2) They are generally restricted from soliciting, accepting or receiving political campaign contributions from any person.
(3) They may not run for elective office in most "partisan" elections.
(4) They are prohibited from soliciting or discouraging participation in any political activities by a person who has an application for a grant, contract or other funds pending before their agencies, or is the subject of an ongoing audit or investigation by their agencies.
(5) They are generally prohibited from engaging in partisan campaign activity on federal property, on official duty time, while wearing a uniform or insignia identifying them as federal officials or employees, or while using a government vehicle.
Members of the uniformed services are subject to the military's own restrictions issued as a Department of Defense Directive, No. 1344.10. Employees of the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Government do not come within the restrictions of the Hatch Act, although some other provisions of federal law, such as the criminal restrictions on campaign contributions and solicitations, generally apply to all federal officers and employees (congressionalresearch.com)
In passing the Hatch Act of 1939, Congress affirmed that partisan activity by government employees must be limited for public institutions to function fairly and effectively.
Federal employees know if they violate the Hatch Act
they can be removed from their position and funds appropriated for their
position cannot again be used to pay them. However, if the Merit System
Protection Board finds unanimously that the violation does not warrant removal,
a penalty of not less than 30 days' suspension without pay can be imposed by
direction of the Board. Federal
employees are also aware that certain political activities may also be considered
criminal offenses under title 18 of the U.S. Code.
Having once managed the largest federal grant of its particular type, and having served as president of a national association organized to advocate for hundreds of programs with similar grants, I had opportunity to work with many federal employees in this category, and some in the other two categories as well.
Having once managed the largest federal grant of its particular type, and having served as president of a national association organized to advocate for hundreds of programs with similar grants, I had opportunity to work with many federal employees in this category, and some in the other two categories as well.
In my experience, the likelihood that a typical federal worker would get
away with a blatant Hatch Act violation is low. Break the law and there is a
good chance the employee would be fired, especially during election season.
There are some things that are allowable - like putting a campaign sign on
your lawn - there are others that might seem okay but are Hatch Act
violations. For example, even when not on duty or in the workplace, one
may not 'like,' share, or retweet a social media post that solicits political
contributions, including invitations to fundraising events. In my experience, civil
servants did not even mention their political leanings or memberships in
compliance with the Hatch Act. There is
no evidence of a ‘deep state’ in this sector, and the low numbers of employees guilty
of Hatch Act violations only reinforces that conclusion.
2. The Senior Executive Service (SES) is the classification for non-competitive, senior leadership positions filled by career employees or political appointments (e.g., Cabinet members, ambassadors, etc.).
2. The Senior Executive Service (SES) is the classification for non-competitive, senior leadership positions filled by career employees or political appointments (e.g., Cabinet members, ambassadors, etc.).
This
is an area where we begin to find some of the political failings that are forbidden
by the Hatch Act. Perhaps, this is due
to the fact that this category includes political appointees and some former
appointees who are saved when one administration is replaced by another. This is done by moving such appointees into
the next category just before the ousted administration leaves office. Recently, some rather high-profile appointees have been accused
of Hatch Act violations, including Julian Castro under the Obama administration
and Kellyanne Conway with the Trump administration.
3. The
excepted service
(also known as unclassified service) includes non-competitive jobs in certain
federal agencies with security and intelligence functions (e.g., the CIA,
FBI,
State Department,
etc.) that are authorized to create their own hiring policies and are not
subject to most appointment, pay, and classification laws. Generally, those dealing with law enforcement or national security, are still subject to more restrictive provisions, similar to the old Hatch Act, which broadly bar such employees from taking an active part in partisan political activities even on their own, off-duty hours.
We all know about the attacks by Trump on these services, but there is
no documentation that these employees constitute a ‘deep state’ designed to
take down his administration. There are
those who oppose his policies and practices – like Comey, Brennan, McCabe, and Mueller
– but there is so far no proof that any of them have overstepped the laws and regulations
that apply to them, in spite of continuing efforts by the Trump administration
to exact revenge against them. (See the post at 2/5/2018 for another possible motive
for Trump attacks).
The
bottom line is simple — even though they are not supposed to, senior political
appointees sometimes get away with conduct that will get a regular federal
worker fired. Nonetheless, in general, the rules are such that it is still a
good idea for political appointees to not cross the line on Hatch Act
violations because a career could depend on the verdict.
“Given the proclivity of Republican politicians to deride the
federal government and the bureaucrats that fill its ranks, it stands to reason
Democrats would be more likely to seek out Uncle Sam for employment. And that is true. But only barely.
“In a recent survey conducted by Government
Business Council,(in 2015) the research arm of Government Executive
Media Group, 44 percent of respondents identified as Democrats or
Democratic-leaning independents, while 40 percent identified as
Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. The remaining respondents
were undecided or did not identify with either party, though a plurality of
them said they were ‘conservatives.’
“Top-level management is more likely to lean to the left, with
49 percent of GS-15 and Senior Executive Service employees identifying or
leaning Democrat and 40 percent Republican. Respondents serving as GS-14s and
below saw a 44/38 split toward Democrats.
In 2015, just 5 percent of GOP feds approved of their ultimate boss -- President
Obama -- while 91 percent disapproved. About 8 in 10 Democratic respondents
gave Obama’s performance positive reviews, while 11 percent disapproved.”
It might also stand to reason that since 2016, more Republicans
and more persons of conservative bent might well have joined this category of
political appointees so that the separation in percentages could be considerably
diminished. In the 2015 survey, Republican
front runner Donald Trump was viewed very unfavorably by the group overall, but
24 percent of Republicans who prioritized federal workforce issues said they
would vote for him if the primary were held that day. His lead among that group
was even larger than among Republican feds.
The poll had 973 federal workers participating, with a 3 percent
margin of error. It was conducted from Aug. 7 through Aug. 12, 2015. (via amrishw / Shutterstock.com)
That
said, it is important to realize a few important points:
- The Hatch Act is an effective deterrent to a deep state acting to block or to oppose a President based on political motives. Therefore, if Trump truly believes there is a deep state of liberal Democrats in the bureaucracy colluding to “play politics” with his agenda, why has he not called for an FBI investigation or enlisted whistle blowers from the rather large contingent of Republicans and conservatives who also work within that bureaucracy? Why aren’t those Trump supporters backing up their leader’s charges by gathering documentation of Hatch Act violations? Or, is it just possible that there exists no such “deep state” conspiracy?
- Furthermore, we must ask: if Trump knows of crimes being committed that are Hatch Act violations, why hasn’t he reported those crimes to the proper authorities? Isn’t that also a crime of abetting? And, doesn’t that reach to high crimes and misdemeanors --impeachable offenses perhaps?
- If there are now between 40-44% Republican or conservative-leaning workers within the federal work force, are we to assume they know nothing about people they work with every day? How come we are not being inundated with reports of democratic obstructionism every day, week or month? Are the usual percentage of Trump supporters just not as loyal as he thinks, or does it indicate that both sides are effectively restrained by the Hatch Act?
- Finally, let us not minimize the fact that a large portion of the federal workers even in 2015 trended toward Republican or conservative. 91% of those who were of that persuasion reported that they disapproved of their ultimate boss – Barak Obama. Yet, even under those circumstances, we did not hear of any huge “deep state” conspiracy against President Obama. (Not that there weren’t any delaying tactics; certainly, they manifested themselves in the Congress). Is it possible that Trump is attempting to create a deep state conspiracy where none exists? Of course he is.
Trump's Bamboozling doesn’t end with the deep state conspiracy.
There is that second defensive conspiracy: that impeachment is a time-wasting hoax and he blames Democrats for the slow-down and obstruction of the Trump agenda
caused by their all-out pursuit of impeachment. In other words, “Democrats are engaging in a
disgraceful, time-wasting impeachment inquiry and not solving the problems
facing this nation.”
This second conspiracy theory
has no credibility whatsoever, and fails on the following grounds:1
- There is little or no legislative agenda for Democrats to block or obstruct. There may be a budget presented, but presidential budget proposals are usually mostly dead-on-arrival anyway, so that doesn’t count. And there is that wall on the southern border of course, but that’s been a dead issue long before an impeachment inquiry began. So, the question, I guess, becomes: what about healthcare, infrastructure, climate change, gun violence control, immigration reform, election reform, adequate housing, schools, and personal privacy on the internet? Where is the Trump agenda on those issues? Absent.
- The Senate is under the control of Republicans, and they have gone along with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and blocked from consideration most of the major legislation already passed by the Democratic House, some of which include:
a.
H.R.1
— For the People Act of 2019 -- This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election
security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government. NO WONDER the Senate Republicans refuse to act
on it! They can’t stand real reform and
transparency!
b.
H.R.5 — Equality Act -- This bill prohibits discrimination based on
sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in a wide variety of areas
including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding,
employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill
defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the
prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.
c.
H.R.6 — American Dream and Promise Act of
2019 -- This bill cancels and
prohibits removal proceedings against certain aliens and provides such aliens
with a path toward permanent resident status
d.
H.R.7 — Paycheck Fairness Act -- This bill addresses wage discrimination based on sex.
It amends equal pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and increases
civil penalties for violations of equal pay provisions.
e.
H.R.8 — Bipartisan Background Checks Act of
2019 – H.R. 8 expands
background checks to cover nearly all sales and transfers of firearms, closing
the “gun show loophole” which currently allows people to purchase guns without
going through a background check
f.
H.R.9 — Climate Action Now Act -- This
bill requires the President to develop and update annually a plan for the
United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris
Agreement on climate change. Specifically, the plan must describe steps to (1)
cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and (2)
confirm that other parties to the agreement with major economies are fulfilling
their announced contributions. In
addition, the bill prohibits federal funds from being used to withdraw from the
agreement
g.
Several appropriation bills also await Senate action
among the 437 bills passed by the House in 2019 and still awaiting action by
the Republican-held Senate! (all documentation drawn from Congress.Gov)
3. The suggestion that Democrats are working to obstruct and defeat the Trump agenda is not compatible with the reality of the situation. In fact, most of the legislation that Trump has signed into law since Democrats gained a majority in the House (Jan. 3, 2019) has had to be bi partisan in order to reach his desk. Thus, Democrats have been responsible for the very legislation that he has been able to sign into law. Here are some samples:
3. The suggestion that Democrats are working to obstruct and defeat the Trump agenda is not compatible with the reality of the situation. In fact, most of the legislation that Trump has signed into law since Democrats gained a majority in the House (Jan. 3, 2019) has had to be bi partisan in order to reach his desk. Thus, Democrats have been responsible for the very legislation that he has been able to sign into law. Here are some samples:
a.
H.R.2157 -- Additional
Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act,
b.
H.J.Res.31 — Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Roybal-Allard, Lucille
[D-CA-40]
c.
John D. Dingell,
Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act
d.
H.R.4378 — Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019
e.
H.R.639 — To amend section 327 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to clarify that
National Urban Search and Rescue Response System task forces may include
Federal employees
f.
H.R.3253 — Sustaining Excellence in Medicaid
Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-12]
g.
H.R.3877 — Bipartisan Budget Act of
2019 Sponsor: Rep. Yarmuth, John A. [D-KY-3]
h.
H.R.439 — National FFA Organization's
Federal Charter Amendments Act Sponsor: Rep. Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2]
i.
H.R.1839 — Medicaid Services
Investment and Accountability Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-36]
j.
H.R.3151 — Taxpayer First Act Sponsor: Rep. Lewis, John [D-GA-5]
This bill revises provisions relating to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
its customer service, enforcement procedures, cybersecurity and identity
protection, management of information technology, and use of electronic
systems.
k.
H.R.3311 — Small
Business Reorganization Act of 2019
Without Democrat support, none of these would have become law. It is especially important to notice that
this represents a wide variety of issues, and that in some cases the
legislation was sponsored or co-sponsored by Democrats. The charge of non-action and obstruction by
Democrats is entirely inaccurate and simply not supported by the facts.
As usual, Donald J. Trump has attempted to Bamboozle the public
with conspiracy theories that have no factual basis. He will continue to do so until he is either
impeached or rejected by voters.
The saddest aspect of this, in my estimation is the constant unquestioning
loyalty and support of 33-39% of the electorate for whatever this tyrant wishes
to say or do. There are people within
that faction who take seriously Trump’s suggestion of a civil war if he does
not have his way, or if he is impeached by Congress or defeated at the polls. This is not just upsetting or appalling, it
is treasonous talk, and has already been shown to have a strong effect among
white nationalists and neo-Nazis who have committed acts of violence and
intimidation against innocent citizens.
Liberals and Progressives have difficulty dealing with the reality of such threats and actions. And yet, this is what much of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are built around: the actual experience of tyrannical acts against the colonists. At the core of these foundation documents is the basic concept that citizens must be vigilant about, prepared for and ready to defend their Constitution and country against tyranny, despotism and foreign interference, or domestic violence (otherwise known as ‘domestic terrorism’).
Liberals and Progressives have difficulty dealing with the reality of such threats and actions. And yet, this is what much of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are built around: the actual experience of tyrannical acts against the colonists. At the core of these foundation documents is the basic concept that citizens must be vigilant about, prepared for and ready to defend their Constitution and country against tyranny, despotism and foreign interference, or domestic violence (otherwise known as ‘domestic terrorism’).
So, the actions of our representatives at all levels must be made
in light of the need to protect against the actions of an illegitimate,
tyrannical president and his fawning minions who support him in all things. There cannot be any compromise with the
undermining of our elections, nor with restrictions put upon the absolute right
to vote, invitations to foreign countries to interfere in our elections, the
abuse of anyone who opposes “the Leader”, attacks against a free press, revenge plotted and enacted against
political opponents, the destruction unleashed upon the central government and
its programs, the abuse of children to frighten migrants, capitulation to an
organization that favors gun violence over domestic tranquility and over life
itself, and the abuse of our national security classification system by placing
presidential phone conversations on its most secret server.
Those who still waver on supporting an impeachment process until more facts are in misconstrue the purpose
of inquiry and minimize the role of the Congress in calling to account a president
who has not only gone down the road of destruction, but has clearly told us
in his own words and public actions what he is doing.
Congressional representatives and judicial appointees must carry
out their oath to protect and defend the Constitution by acting to keep this
man and his storm-troopers from a complete take-over (coup) of our form
of government as defined under our Constitution. The Founding Fathers gave us this remedy to
be used when our liberties are threatened and our institutions are put in
danger by an incumbent executive.
There is no indication that such a situation calls for caution or delay. There is no “waiting period” connected with impeachment. There are no mincing words; the verb “shall” does not speak of options. There is no indication that impeachment and election are antithetical. Impeachment can happen anytime. It is not dependent on anything but initiation by the House of Representatives. Those who place an election or waiting period for more facts in the way of the process are not acting in accord with their oath or their obligations. Let us simply read again the Constitution’s description of impeachment:
There is no indication that such a situation calls for caution or delay. There is no “waiting period” connected with impeachment. There are no mincing words; the verb “shall” does not speak of options. There is no indication that impeachment and election are antithetical. Impeachment can happen anytime. It is not dependent on anything but initiation by the House of Representatives. Those who place an election or waiting period for more facts in the way of the process are not acting in accord with their oath or their obligations. Let us simply read again the Constitution’s description of impeachment:
Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives…shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all
Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office
on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.”
Finally, it is not enough for the House to impeach on just one
charge of a potentially treasonous phone call to a foreign leader. It is imperative that the full range of Trump’s
High Crimes and Misdemeanors be explored and charged in order to produce for
the American public the full pattern of this man’s abuse of power which is undermining
and overthrowing our democracy. Impeachment
is not a choice; it is an obligation placed upon the Congress to protect us all
from an Executive who threatens our Constitution and our government. ‘Shall’ means ‘must’, not maybe!
