|
Post by redleg on Jul 23, 2014 19:27:39 GMT -5
She is under investigation for crimes that could lead to a charge of sedition. She is not eligible for her pension until she is cleared. The Feds can hold it in escrow, but they don't have to pay her unless, and until she's cleared. She is not going to be charged with sedition, no matter how much you might like that to happen redleg. Until she is convicted of a federal crime, she has earned and will continue to receive her pension. One other thing; you keep posting about how Congress should defund the various agencies - also not going to happen. Defunding an agency will require the President to sign that bill into law. He's not going to do that and until the Republicans learn to control the message a little better, they are going to get blamed for shutting down the government. Catching that blame before the 2014 mid terms is the personification of stupid. No, he doesn't. For one thing, the funding has to go from the House through the Senate. Dingy Harry won't even allow a vote on a bill that defunds anything. So, since there is no bill, there are no funds. Period. The Puppet doesn't even get it on his desk. Simply don't allocate funds. And government workers can lose their pensions for criminal activity. Even for being charged. The military can cut off your pay for simply being charged with something, and most government contracts carry the same language. She doesn't get paid until the investigation, and if warranted, the trial, is over.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 23, 2014 19:49:06 GMT -5
One other thing; you keep posting about how Congress should defund the various agencies - also not going to happen. Defunding an agency will require the President to sign that bill into law. He's not going to do that and until the Republicans learn to control the message a little better, they are going to get blamed for shutting down the government. Catching that blame before the 2014 mid terms is the personification of stupid. This would be weapons-grade stupid. The Republicans have an excellent chance to make significant gains in the Senate, perhaps even capture it. But they are often their own worst enemy. I could easily seem them screwing this up; they simply don't have very many bright people in that party. And why would they? They actively disdain intellect and education when it conflicts with their book of religious lore.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 23, 2014 22:31:31 GMT -5
One other thing; you keep posting about how Congress should defund the various agencies - also not going to happen. Defunding an agency will require the President to sign that bill into law. He's not going to do that and until the Republicans learn to control the message a little better, they are going to get blamed for shutting down the government. Catching that blame before the 2014 mid terms is the personification of stupid. This would be weapons-grade stupid. The Republicans have an excellent chance to make significant gains in the Senate, perhaps even capture it. But they are often their own worst enemy. I could easily seem them screwing this up; they simply don't have very many bright people in that party. And why would they? They actively disdain intellect and education when it conflicts with their book of religious lore. Really? It's not the Pubs that are trying to destroy the energy sector because of the myth of "global warming". It's not the Pubs that opened the border, then issued an engraved invitation, yet claim surprise because we have an invasion of illegals. It wasn't a Pub that claimed Guam would capsize if we sent more troops there. Those few examples, out of many, don't point to a party that embraces intellect or education.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 24, 2014 2:53:32 GMT -5
She is not going to be charged with sedition, no matter how much you might like that to happen redleg. Until she is convicted of a federal crime, she has earned and will continue to receive her pension. One other thing; you keep posting about how Congress should defund the various agencies - also not going to happen. Defunding an agency will require the President to sign that bill into law. He's not going to do that and until the Republicans learn to control the message a little better, they are going to get blamed for shutting down the government. Catching that blame before the 2014 mid terms is the personification of stupid. No, he doesn't. For one thing, the funding has to go from the House through the Senate. Dingy Harry won't even allow a vote on a bill that defunds anything. So, since there is no bill, there are no funds. Period. The Puppet doesn't even get it on his desk. Simply don't allocate funds. And government workers can lose their pensions for criminal activity. Even for being charged. The military can cut off your pay for simply being charged with something, and most government contracts carry the same language. She doesn't get paid until the investigation, and if warranted, the trial, is over. redleg, you're not listening. If there is no bill, as you write, there is no funding and no government - and the Republicans would get stuck with that closure. A closure prior to the 2014 mid term elections would cost the Republicans the House and any shot at the Presidency. Government workers cannot lost their pensions without being found guilty of a crime. Even then, the crime must have been related to their work. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but you may want to check the source. And what happens in the military is irrelevant to what happens in the civil service.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 24, 2014 8:39:55 GMT -5
No, he doesn't. For one thing, the funding has to go from the House through the Senate. Dingy Harry won't even allow a vote on a bill that defunds anything. So, since there is no bill, there are no funds. Period. The Puppet doesn't even get it on his desk. Simply don't allocate funds. And government workers can lose their pensions for criminal activity. Even for being charged. The military can cut off your pay for simply being charged with something, and most government contracts carry the same language. She doesn't get paid until the investigation, and if warranted, the trial, is over. redleg, you're not listening. If there is no bill, as you write, there is no funding and no government - and the Republicans would get stuck with that closure. A closure prior to the 2014 mid term elections would cost the Republicans the House and any shot at the Presidency. Government workers cannot lost their pensions without being found guilty of a crime. Even then, the crime must have been related to their work. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but you may want to check the source. And what happens in the military is irrelevant to what happens in the civil service. Not so. My wife works in the government sector, and there is a morals clause. She can lose her pension, or have it held in abeyance, for moral indiscretions. If charged with a crime, it can be held pending the outcome of the trial.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 24, 2014 9:54:11 GMT -5
redleg, I hate to put you in this position, but your wife is wrong. Check the Hiss Act of 1954, as amended in 1961.
Essentially, the act states that unless an employee is convicted of a crime that involves sedition or the overthrow of the federal government, they get their pension.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 24, 2014 20:53:33 GMT -5
redleg, I hate to put you in this position, but your wife is wrong. Check the Hiss Act of 1954, as amended in 1961. Essentially, the act states that unless an employee is convicted of a crime that involves sedition or the overthrow of the federal government, they get their pension. se·di·tion noun \si-ˈdi-shən\ : the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government m erriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition The GOVERNMENT says that the IRS is not allowed to play political favorites. Lerner coerced subordinates into doing that. The GOVERNMENT says, and so does the Constitution, that the government (the IRS) is not allowed to give out privileged, private information. Lerner coerced subordinates into doing that. The GOVERNMENT says that departments are not allowed to use other departments to harass and intimidate citizens, especially because of their political stances. Lerner coerced subordinates into doing that. Therefore, she committed sedition. Will she be charged? No. But she did commit the act.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 25, 2014 4:47:21 GMT -5
redleg, I hate to put you in this position, but your wife is wrong. Check the Hiss Act of 1954, as amended in 1961. Essentially, the act states that unless an employee is convicted of a crime that involves sedition or the overthrow of the federal government, they get their pension. se·di·tion noun \si-ˈdi-shən\ : the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition The GOVERNMENT says that the IRS is not allowed to play political favorites. Lerner coerced subordinates into doing that. The GOVERNMENT says, and so does the Constitution, that the government (the IRS) is not allowed to give out privileged, private information. Lerner coerced subordinates into doing that. The GOVERNMENT says that departments are not allowed to use other departments to harass and intimidate citizens, especially because of their political stances. Lerner coerced subordinates into doing that. You missed one important piece: Therefore, IMO she committed sedition. Will she be charged? No. But IMO she did commit the act. Your opinion, while respected in this quarter, doesn't find her guilty of the act, nor does it create the crime that will cost her access to her pension, which is what at least my portion of the thread was discussing. And by the way, Merriam Webster defines the word, but not the crime of sedition. Try this one definitions.uslegal.com/s/sedition/ as a starter.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 25, 2014 9:03:21 GMT -5
se·di·tion noun \si-ˈdi-shən\ : the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition The GOVERNMENT says that the IRS is not allowed to play political favorites. Lerner coerced subordinates into doing that. The GOVERNMENT says, and so does the Constitution, that the government (the IRS) is not allowed to give out privileged, private information. Lerner coerced subordinates into doing that. The GOVERNMENT says that departments are not allowed to use other departments to harass and intimidate citizens, especially because of their political stances. Lerner coerced subordinates into doing that. You missed one important piece: Therefore, IMO she committed sedition. Will she be charged? No. But IMO she did commit the act. Your opinion, while respected in this quarter, doesn't find her guilty of the act, nor does it create the crime that will cost her access to her pension, which is what at least my portion of the thread was discussing. And by the way, Merriam Webster defines the word, but not the crime of sedition. Try this one definitions.uslegal.com/s/sedition/ as a starter. From your link: Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy. Her attempts to disrupt the legal, Constitutionally described vote is disrupting the legal operation of government.
|
|