Current Events > Federal Employees warned to not discuss Trump resistance at work.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/us/politics/federal-employees-hatch-act-trump-impeachment.html

At workplaces across the United States, it is routine for Americans conversations to turn to President Trump whether his policies are good, whether he should be impeached, what to think about the resistance. Some drink from MAGA mugs; others tape cartoons to their cubicle walls portraying Mr. Trump as a Russian quisling.

But roughly two million people who work for the federal government have now been told that it may be illegal for them to participate in such discussions at work a pronouncement that legal specialists say breaks new ground, and that some criticized as going too far.

Generally, federal employees have been free to express opinions about policies and legislative activity at work as long as they do not advocate voting for or against particular candidates in partisan elections. But in a guidance document distributed on Wednesday, the independent agency that enforces the Hatch Act, a law that bars federal employees from taking part in partisan political campaigns at work or in an official capacity, warned that making or displaying statements at work about impeaching or resisting Mr. Trump is likely to amount to illegal political activity.

The guidance was issued by the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that enforces the Hatch Act, including by investigating complaints of improper political activity and recommending discipline like a reprimand or firing for violators. The agency also enforces the Hatch Act against state and local government officials whose salaries come from federal grants.

The reasoning behind the guidance centers on the fact that Mr. Trump is already running for re-election in 2020. It contends that arguments about his policies or impeachment prospects are effectively statements in support or opposition to his campaign.

We understand that the resistance and #resist originally gained prominence shortly after President Trumps election in 2016 and generally related to efforts to oppose administration policies, the guidance said. However, resistance, #resist and similar terms have become inextricably linked with the electoral success (or failure) of the president.

And while impeachment is primarily about removing a president from office, the agency said that because a removed president would also apparently become disqualified from holding federal office in the future, supporting or opposing Mr. Trumps impeachment amounts to taking a stand on his potential re-election.

Advocating for a candidate to be impeached, and thus potentially disqualified from holding federal office, is clearly directed at the failure of that candidates campaign for federal office, the guidance said. Similarly, advocating against a candidates impeachment is activity directed at maintaining that candidates eligibility for federal office and therefore also considered political activity.
Several legal specialists raised concerns about the new guidance, warning that it would intimidate people into avoiding even casual discussions with colleagues that should not be deemed banned by the statute.

A large number of federal employees voted for Trump, but even they may disagree with him on specific policies and want to express that, said J. Ward Morrow, assistant general counsel for the American Federation of Government Employees, a union that represents about 700,000 such workers. He added, If they are going to go after anyone who mentions the word impeachment in emails to co-workers, that will be overreach.

---

Daniel Jacobson, who fielded Hatch Act questions as a White House lawyer in the Obama administration, called the new interpretation overly broad, collapsing expressions of opposition or support for Mr. Trumps actions into campaign activity, even when the speaker is not thinking about the 2020 campaign.

People who use the term resist could be expressing views about any number of matters, and the presumption that they are specifically advocating for the defeat of a candidate in 2020 strikes me as crazy and raises significant First Amendment concerns, he said.

Still, Jeff Ruch, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which works to protect environmental officials amid shifting political winds, noted that the Supreme Court has limited the First Amendment protections for speech by government workers while they are on duty. And he said he thought the warning was a fair interpretation of what the law means, although he said he was not happy about the state of the law.

Ana Galindo-Marrone, the chief of the Office of Special Counsels Hatch Act unit since 2000, said she and her deputy came up with the interpretation after receiving numerous questions about the rules. She argued that the guidance fit within the offices past interpretations, while noting that Mr. Trumps presidency has raised new wrinkles: The two presidents subjected to impeachment proceedings since the Hatch Act became law, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton, were in their second terms and so ineligible to run for president again anyway.

Ms. Galindo-Marrone also said the Hatch Act often raises gray area situations, in which investigators have to carefully consider all the facts and circumstances before deciding whether a line has been crossed. She contrasted what she deemed the clear case of someone who displays a sign or button that says Impeach Trump at work with the murkier case of someone who says that while discussing the news with a colleague over lunch in a federal building.

Still, Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in government ethics issues, criticized the idea of bootstrapping the notion of impeachment to the 2020 election at all.

This goes beyond past guidance about what partisan political activity is, and is more restrictive of speech of federal employees than past guidance that Ive been able to find, she said, adding: I think their legal analysis is wrong in this attempt to outlaw all discussion of impeachment of Trump in the federal workplace. Maybe that is a good idea, maybe that is a bad idea, but I dont think that is what the Hatch Act requires.

Sounds like a bit of an overreach.
---

Thanks Obama
---

Good, these commies should move to Venezuela instead
---

Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Trump should be convicted of treason
---

Not surprised Trumpers are ignoring this
---

I'm interested to see where the Hatch Act and First Amendment collide in this situation
---

People complain that google is creating some sort of Orwellien dystopia, but it's moves like this that are moving the US towards a fascist dictatorship regime. It's funny how calls form Freedom of Speech suddenly aren't as important when it's Trump that is being criticized.

Dash_Harber posted...

People complain that google is creating some sort of Orwellien dystopia, but it's moves like this that are moving the US towards a fascist dictatorship regime. It's funny how calls form Freedom of Speech suddenly aren't as important when it's Trump that is being criticized.

Seriously. Forcible suppression of criticism is a play straight out of the dictators handbook.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

But in a guidance document distributed on Wednesday, the independent agency that enforces the Hatch Act, a law that bars federal employees from taking part in partisan political campaigns at work or in an official capacity, warned that making or displaying statements at work about impeaching or resisting Mr. Trump is likely to amount to illegal political activity.

Fair, next.

NeonOctopus posted...

Thanks Obama

well yeah, if it wasnt for all those racists trying to tare down obama we would have to take these precautions
---

Vertania posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

But in a guidance document distributed on Wednesday, the independent agency that enforces the Hatch Act, a law that bars federal employees from taking part in partisan political campaigns at work or in an official capacity, warned that making or displaying statements at work about impeaching or resisting Mr. Trump is likely to amount to illegal political activity.

Fair, next.

Look at this guy wanting to live in a fascist shithole.
---

Good.
---

Vertania posted...

Fair, next.

Funbazooka posted...

Good.

Somehow I'm not surprised that Trump humpers like these are fascist apologists
---

Funbazooka posted...

Good.
---
MAGA

Nice sig
---

the independent agency that enforces the Hatch Act, a law that bars federal employees from taking part in partisan political campaigns at work or in an official capacity, warned that making or displaying statements at work about impeaching or resisting Mr. Trump is likely to amount to illegal political activity.

The topic title sounds bad, but the reality is not even interesting.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Look at this guy wanting to live in a fascist shithole.

Look at this guy not understanding what the Hatch Act is.

Guess America has been facist since 1939, then.

why do people think that freedom of speech applies when you are at school or work.
I mean you can still say it Fuck all ___ people at work and at school, but ofcourse they are going to fire you or send you to detention.

also why are journalists so intentionally dishonest. They constantly bring up things that have existed for years to drum up liberal drones into believing the fascist boogeyman

What a bunch of jerks
---

Vertania posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Look at this guy wanting to live in a fascist shithole.

Look at this guy not understanding what the Hatch Act is.

Guess America has been facist since 1939, then.

Look at my surprise face when a guy who spouted pizzagate doesn't understand the issue with this.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

the independent agency that enforces the Hatch Act, a law that bars federal employees from taking part in partisan political campaigns at work or in an official capacity, warned that making or displaying statements at work about impeaching or resisting Mr. Trump is likely to amount to illegal political activity.

The topic title sounds bad, but the reality is not even interesting.

The reality is that federal employees have been able to openly express their political views all throughout our history, up until Trump became president. Don't know why any Trump supporter would support fasci... Oh nvm. I know why.
---

Wow. Don't talk openly about resisting or advocating for the removal of who like it or not is at the end of the day your boss. Who ever would have thought that was a no-no? *sarcasm*

How is that not a basic rules 101 "Yeah, no shit." thing? No matter where or who you work for.
---

OctilIery posted...

Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

---