General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGarland Bans Political Appointees from Campaign Events
Garland Bans Political Appointees from Campaign Events
August 30, 2022 at 2:56 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 21 Comments
https://politicalwire.com/2022/08/30/garland-bans-political-appointees-from-campaign-events/
"SNIP......
Attorney General Merrick Garland banned political appointees at the Department of Justice from participating in campaign events in any form.
Wrote Garland in a memo: We must do all we can to maintain public trust and ensure that politics both in fact and appearance does not compromise or affect the integrity of our work.
The Hill: Previous policy allowed political appointees to sometimes attend partisan events in their personal capacities if they participated passively and obtained approval, but Garland on Tuesday barred those individuals from participating in partisan political events in any capacity, even if the event is private.
......SNIP"
FalloutShelter
(11,887 posts)No one from the Department will be allowed to give any "political" ammunition to the GOP... or the Press... or the targets/lawyers.
Maybe sounds like something coming soon.
EndlessWire
(6,573 posts)I didn't know that he could do that.
I don't see how he can wait much longer for the Complaint and Warrant of Arrest.
2naSalit
(86,840 posts)Harker
(14,056 posts)It's a message, alright, and I very much hope you're right.
Grins
(7,239 posts)Harker
(14,056 posts)mjvpi
(1,389 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,449 posts)will be when all law enforcement agencies go on tactical alert and the NG are put on standby.
littlemissmartypants
(22,839 posts)LakeArenal
(28,858 posts)calimary
(81,527 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,170 posts)iluvtennis
(19,882 posts)sheshe2
(83,953 posts)Good move on Garlands part!
liberal N proud
(60,347 posts)Snackshack
(2,541 posts)The plot thickens
cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)KS Toronado
(17,368 posts)Farmer-Rick
(10,216 posts)God talks them...
Not all of them, but at least 6 of them think they know how their super sky daddy wants them to decide the case.
Better Days Ahoy
(698 posts)I am guaranteed to steal that.
wnylib
(21,657 posts)some members of Congress as well as the current SC majority. They do not grasp the concept of submitting oneself to a principle that they participate in creating. As creators of laws (and that includes the present SC), they see themselves as gods, above that which they created.
Rebl2
(13,575 posts)think they should be told they cant speak to groups like the Federalists Society or to participate in such groups.
James48
(4,443 posts)Excuse me but how many political appointees work at the DOJ? It cant be many. I thought only a couple exist.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Deputy this, assistant that. Most departments have several dozen political appointees. There will also be the office of "spokesman" in which basically everyone above some hourly secretary is appointed. There are literally tens of thousands of appointees in the executive branch. It's one of the problems that new presidents have. They have alot of offices to fill and they all have to be vetted. Some don't get filled for a year or more. I sorta wish this was law somehow.
Zeitghost
(3,874 posts)n/t
FakeNoose
(32,823 posts)Of course Chump's 4 years destroyed any credibility in the Hatch Act.
I guess maybe Garland wants to "re-set" everything now before the Repukes get the wrong idea and think they got away with all of it.
BumRushDaShow
(129,662 posts)I am an employee who was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS). Am I covered by the Hatch Act?
Yes. An employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS), is subject to the provisions of the Hatch Act. However, certain PAS's are not subject to the Act's prohibition against engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle. To be exempt from this prohibition, a PAS must meet all of the following criteria:
1) the duties and responsibilities of his position must continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post;
2) his position must be located within the United States; and
3) he must determine policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of federal laws.
If a PAS meets all these criteria, he is not prohibited from engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle, provided the costs associated with the political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States. However, the PAS remains subject to all the other prohibitions of the Hatch Act, and thus, may not: use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election; knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person; be a candidate for public office in a partisan election; or knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has business before the employee's employing office.
Wounded Bear
(58,737 posts)vlyons
(10,252 posts)He's doing the right think to keep the JOD above the taint of republican politics.
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)On the one hand, obvi that should be policy
On the other hand.. is it really important whether someone from DOJ attends a campaign event? Like.. outside of garland and others who have "names" that are known.. why would anyone care if some staffer supports this guy or that?
Is there a value in at least having a record of who these fools are willing to go out of their way to support?
I dont know. This seems all at once to be codifying proper decorum, and yet not really meaningful, unless theres something I missed
mjvpi
(1,389 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)You never know when someone's work will become critical in a particular case.
wnylib
(21,657 posts)when DOJ indicts someone, there can be absolutely no appearance of being partisan. If members of DOJ have been involved in any partisan politics, it creates distrust in the general population about the validity and reasons for the indictment.
To give an example from current legal events. The FBI, a division of DOJ, carried out a legal search of the former president's home in Florida in order to recover stolen government documents, including several that are top secret. If any people in the FBI or DOJ are involved in partisan politics, the former president and his supporters can undermine the credibility of the search by claiming that it is partisan politics and not justice.
Same applies to when any of the people involved in the theft of government property, or in attacking government property (the Capitol) get indicted and face trial.
DOJ must be above partisan politics.
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)Obviously DOJ should be above partizan politics.
However.. is it?
If a Trump appointee stops going to fundraisers due to a new policy against it, does that make them any less likely to be biased in the work they do?
wnylib
(21,657 posts)about this. But within a few days to a week, I think that it will be clearer to you.
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)jaxexpat
(6,862 posts)never envisioned a nation in perpetual campaign mode. Certainly they had no first hand knowledge of how mass communication would cripple their horse drawn model as it encouraged even the lowbred to peek under the skirts of that designedly exclusive club, the federal government.
Mr. Garland may try to stifle the misconduct of government employees under his watch by fiat but it's not likely to succeed in fact. That boat has already sailed, at least to the untrained eye. These last years have proved Mr Dylan correct, "The times, they are a'changin."
I tried to outlaw personal cell phones for employees on the job site. A production as well as a safety issue. You don't want to work in an excavation when the excavator operator is on his phone. But, alas, it was trying to hold back the tide, a fools errand. It is, after all, a free country. Except for military personnel, we are at liberty to assemble for our own purposes whenever we want. As soon as I had turned my back, the phones were at every ear except for the immigrant workers who tended to appreciate their jobs.
Jack the Greater
(601 posts)SouthernDem4ever
(6,617 posts)I am sick of the politics in our law enforcement agency since Dump was in the white house.