ICE Employee Who Repeatedly Told Coworkers to Vote Hillary Is Barred From Federal Service
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement employee is facing a five-year ban on federal employment after it was found that she repeatedly told her coworkers to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in the run up to the 2016 election.
The discipline was doled out in a settlement agreement between the employee, who went unnamed in the announcement, and the Office of Special Counsel. OSC is responsible for enforcement of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in certain political activities while on the job.
The employee posted more than 100 social media messages in support of Clinton between March and November 2016 while on the job or in her workplace, OSC said, a Hatch Act violation. She directly discussed Clinton with her coworkers, encouraging them to vote for the Democratic candidate and inviting them to campaign rallies.The California-based, General Schedule-8 employee who worked as an enforcement removal assistant continued the activity after receiving guidance and annual training on Hatch Act policies. She had “significant” knowledge of the law, OSC said, and continued her prohibited activity even after OSC first interviewed her. She has worked in the federal government since 2000.
When a federal employee emphatically and repeatedly engages in political activity while on duty or in the workplace, OSC takes that very seriously,” Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner said. “This employee thumbed her nose at the law and engaged in vocal partisan politics both with her colleagues and on social media.”
Kerner advised employees to be mindful of the ICE employee’s mistakes with the upcoming midterm election approaching. The employee agreed to resign as part of her settlement.
The incident is the second time in recent weeks that OSC cracked down on an employee working in the immigration policy realm for having inappropriately voiced support for Clinton. The agency in June recommended for discipline an immigration judge, who in 2016 allegedly expressed support for Clinton during an open deportation hearing.
Carmene “Zsa Zsa” DePaolo said the threat of a 10-year ban on reentry for an undocumented person was “a pretty harsh thing” that Clinton was planning to change. The policy would be altered provided that “the Senate becomes a Democratic body and there’s some hope that they can actually pass immigration legislation,” DePaulo added. She then said the Republicans, by contrast, “aren’t going to do anything” about immigration “if they can help it,” other than to “try to deport everybody,” according to OSC’s account.
The moral to the story? If you work for the Government, you fall under the Hatch Act, you should pay attention to that, especially after you've already been counselled about it.
I agree, every election season I pull out the hatch act and go over it with staff. My director has always been very cognate of the rules and she makes me recite them to staff whenever the time calls for it.
I wish you were as adamant about this President and his Administration following the rules as you seem to be for those who identify as democrat.
The better question is what rules have Rump and his administration followed?
"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know". John Heywood
I'm adamant about what I have control over. That would be me. We are required to do refresher training annually on the Hatch Act. Looks like paying attention to those rules are a good thing.
And waht has been the result of that? Just becuase I flag a comment of yours, doesn't mean it gets deleted, if you understand my meaning.
The suit is a result of Trump failing to take ANY disciplinary action as is his DUTY. MANY violations have been reported to Trump and he just blows them off. Since the suit was just filed on the 2nd, there is NO result as of yet.
Yes I understand your meaning. The DIFFERENCE is that the ethics officers HAVE reviewed the statements and recommended disciplinary action and Trump/Kelly have ignored them.
Once again, read the seeded article for comprehension.
If you feel that limiting your knowledge to the seeded article is prudent, so be it. I refer to garner information outside it's parameters. My practice in doing so has proven to give ME a better comprehension of this and other issues...
Your comments are right on point with the Hatch Act. Don't let them bully you.
No worries...
Rump 'won', so what's the problem?
Another government employee who believed she was above the law. Imagine that.
Considering the fact that Trump has failed to discipline Executive Branch employees for doing the exact same thing and worse, one has to wonder why the different standards?
This was in the story above.....OSC is responsible.....I'm sure that the OSC would have acted if they believe that a Civil Service Employee had violated trh Hatch Act, as they did witht he one this articel is about along with the other mentioned towards the end of the article.
Your comments indicate a difficulty in understanding the seeded topic.
Right, because the article is the best and last word so you don't really need to educate yourself on the ACTUAL process.
Did you note that I cited EXECUTIVE BRANCH employees? Do you know how many of them are under investigation by OSC? Do you know that some have already been recommended for discipline? Do you care?
Here is what the OSC stated in their recommendation for disciplinary action on Conway in Nov. 2017:
So the OSC DID act and Trump IGNORED them. I have no doubt he will do the same when Zinke is recommended for discipline.
So again, I ask, WHY the difference in standards?
Your comments indicate a reliance on the LIMITED information in the seeded article for your 'understanding' of the topic. Unlike too many here, I choose to take the time to be informed and educate myself on an issue rather than make kneejerk comments that merely illustrate a lack of motivation to know WTF I'm talking about.
Trump failed to discipline Conway AFTER the OSC filed a recommendation for her violations of the Hatch Act. Zinke is under investigation by the OSC, a report is pending.
CREW has filed a complaint with the OSC for 10 Trump officials violations of the Hatch Act.
Read my 2.1.3 comment for the OSC's explanation of the CONSTITUTIONAL responsibility that Trump has to discipline WH officials.
But hey, far be it from me to extend anyone's knowledge beyond the parameters of the seeded article. Wouldn't want to force anyone to ACTUALLY understand the 'seeded topic'. Bubbles may burst.
Ignorance IS bliss, right?
This article is about a Civil Service Employee that violated the Hatch Act. It is not about President Trump, what he did or did not do.
Stay on Topic. If you want to discuss something else besides the seeded article, seed your own article.
Additionally, stop insulting people with your comments - Now.
And Dulay's comment has to do with violations of that act.
Committed by the subject of the article?
Pay attention.
I AM discussing the content of the seeded article. It is about a violation of the Hatch act by an 'employee' in 'Federal Service'.
NOWHERE in the 'seeded article' does it state 'Civil Service Employee' so you're attempt at moving the goal posts is BAD FORM!
As YOU said in your opening comment, ALL Federal employees are covered by the Hatch Act, INCLUDING those appointed by Trump.
So I ask you AGAIN, WHY the double standard?
BTW, I wasn't the FIRST to bring up Trump and his unwillingness to require his Administrative official to follow the Hatch Act but I seem to be the only one who you decided to call out for it. Why is that?
Sooooo ……. if it was said a "Public" employee ……. That would have been better ?
" Civil service employees, often called civil servants or public employees , work in a variety of fields such as teaching, sanitation, health care, management, and administration for the federal, state, or local government.
I'm not the one equivocating here.
I posted a comment within the parameters of the seeded article. PERIOD, full stop.
If you have a suggestion for changing it's content perhaps you should contact the author. Though that will not change the content seeded here...
Yes YOU are !
Your own equivocating comment:
"NOWHERE in the 'seeded article' does it state 'Civil Service Employee' so you're attempt at moving the goal posts is BAD FORM!"
Go look up rebuttal...
Rebuttal:
n. evidence introduced to counter, disprove or contradict the opposition's evidence or a presumption.
I suppose "just Contradict" is the flavor of the year for the left.....even when WRONG !
So I presume that means that you can quote from the seed where it cites "Civil Service Employee'. I'll wait...
The California-based, General Schedule-8 employee
Touche!
You Love "Word" playing huh.
Are you privy to every conversation between Trump and Conway?
Gary - we shouldn't be limited to just discussing the hatch act. We should be able to expand the discussion to include a variety of ethic rules. You are controlling the narrative by creating narrow perimeters.
That's not very nice. tsk.....tsk....tsk.....
It is my seed, afterall. The discussion is the Hatch Act, which both you and I have to live by. The Hatch Act specifically, in it's wording applies to Civil Service. That is the subject, regardless of those that want to point fingers at Secretary Clinton or President Trump. As I told those that want to have a different discussion, there is always the ability to seed their own discussion.
Oh, so we care about Hatch Act violations now, do we? Okay, I'll see your low level Civil Service hack one-time violator and raise you to a top level Scumbag toady:
Conway violated Hatch Act, report says
I seem to remember this report of a document violation receiving more cheers than boos from trumphumpers at the time--a lot of crowing about how no one ever gets punished for violating that crusty old law--HAR HAR HAAAAARRRRRRR
Thanks again, though, for the opportunity to highlight the eternal hypocrisy and double-dealing of the rightwing, especially the Scumbag contingent.
Okay.......you seem to be happy in your bubble of select information. I will move along.
nice deflection.
Thanks. I always enjoy highlighting rightwing hypocrisy and general scumbaggery.
deleted
The article isn't about your beloved Abuela.
Read it.
Pay attention.
But, gee, Texie.... don't you see her name in the title? Yet another face plant for you it seems.
yes, the words appear in the title.
Some of us actually READ the article.
"Coworkers" is also in the title.
Do you think the article is about coworkers?
"Ice" is in the title.
Do you think this is an article about ICE?
Please, for the love of God, stop
, you are looking foolish.
The words "to" and "from" are also in the headline. Do you think this seed is a grammar discussion about prepositions?
Isn't that just about the most idiotic argument you have heard from him yet?
I suppose this headline would be about miles, right?
"Man in Wheelchair travels 600 Miles"
LMAO, at the sheer desperation from some!
Didn't this comment, that the seeder DIDN'T flag:
acknowledge that it IS in part about Hillary Clinton?
Who she campaigned for in violation of law isn't the topic.
JR, Post commentary about the seeded article or post nothing. Got it?
If you post an article containing Hillary's name and then say discussing or defending Hillary is out of bounds that sounds like bullying.
Awww.
Actually, it's proof of selective flagging since John isn't the first or only member who cited Clinton, he's just not on the 'preferred' list...
deleted
Actually, what it is proof of is some can't comprehend what the subject matter is.
Just because Hillary is in the title doesn't mean she is the topic.
SMMFH
Thanks for explaining it to people that like to make assumptions about things they don't really know or understand.
For the life of me, I cant see why any law-abiding American would be in the least bothered by the woman being punished for breaking the law.
Unless WHO you campaign for makes a difference to them?
It seems that some people feel that laws should be applied differently for "special" folks.
Trump's refusal to take disciplinary action against Conway proves your point.
Perhaps it's time for you to read the seeded article and make an on-topic comment, Dulay. Then, and only then, will I engage in further discussion with you.
Discuss the seeded Topic
Well at least we know Hillary has one fan