Dear @Twitter Hatch Act specialists: “The law’s purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace...”1
and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation. “ osc.gov/Services/Pages… As Acting Director, Deputy Director and General Counsel of @USOPM under President Reagan, I worked with @USMSPB on many cases involving it. 2
It was most recently amended in 2012 and I’m not up to speed on the new provisions, but I’ve seen so many absurd assertions put forward that just invent theories/grievances. As I told @CapehartJ and @crampell on a @washingtonpost live stream this week, one thing to consider: 3
I’m pretty sure that everything done this week ran through White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s White House Counsel Office. (I’m an alum of that office too.) One of the regular duties of the Counsel staff is keeping an eye so that, say, the Lincoln Bedroom isn’t rented out. 4
Lots of rules, plenty of alleged scandals. nytimes.com/1999/05/09/mag… Remember “No controlling legal authority?” prospect.org/features/al-go… It comes up every campaign. miamiherald.com/news/nation-wo… Charges are as regular as Cabinet members speaking at Conventions. nationalreview.com/corner/no-its-… 5
But Hatch Act claims against @realDonaldTrump are particularly stupid because the law doesn’t apply to @POTUS or @VP: oversight.house.gov/sites/democrat… There are constitutional issues lurking as well when “experts” say “norms” are violated. 6
The Executive Mansion and grounds are a home and an office for the head of Government and State, and it’s especially privileged turf for a president. @realDonaldTrump staging is unprecedented because, why, there aren’t conventions this year because there couldn’t be. 7
So a new “normal” was going to be established one way or the other by the party and president in power. If the hand writing and charges were at least put into context with some scintilla of legal framing, the “experts” wouldn’t be so obviously making it up as they go along. 8
But it’s Blue Bubble media that has effectively banished pro-@realDonaldTrump voices from many platforms even as the country remains equally divided. So the distorted opinions on the Hatch Act are largely (always?) unchallenged. 9
Best to keep in mind “I heard it on TV” or “I read it on the internet” remain less than persuasive especially when applied to matters of law. If the public is offended, it’s remedy is —remarkably— available on 11/3. Maybe there will be a great rebuke to @POTUS for Hatch Act. 10
But sheesh, the “experts” usually aren’t and, like me, often come from partisan backgrounds but, unlike me, don’t reveal them. Consumer beware. The “legal” opinions you hear are worth exactly what you pay for them. 11
