IF the Perjurer In Chief...

Ziggy disagrees with any Law that he doesn't agree with.

And I don't agree with some of the laws that I do agree with.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38064.html#ixzz0pl1nFZuY

This may render moot all the rest...

Insult to injury, no?

WASHINGTON — One of President Barack Obama's top advisers suggested to a Colorado Democrat that he forgo a primary challenge to Sen. Michael Bennet and instead apply for one of three international development jobs.

The back-room deals — former President Bill Clinton led the Pennsylvania effort and White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina worked with former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/senate-candidate-says-white-540388.html

ziggy wrote:What is the "break the law" violation in offering an unpaid job- even a political quid-pro-quo unpaid job?..

You answered your own question, Ziggy!

ziggy wrote:Permitted/prohibited activities for employees who may participate in partisan political activity


These federal and D.C. employees may not:

use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
be candidates for public office in partisan elections
engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

To "interefere with an election" it takes more than just offering someone an unpaid job to not run for office.

Are you denying there was an attempt to alter the outcome of an election?

You or me casting our vote is an attempt to alter the outcome of an election. Political advertising is an attempt to alter the outcome of an election.

Encouraging people to either run or not run for public office is an attempt to alter the outcome of an election. But it is not an illegal "interference" with an election unless it violative of a particular stature that says it is.

That we are even having this conversation sort of invalidates Obama's pledge to run a transparent and ethical administration. It is evidence of his ham-handed, Chicago-inspired political machine that is both sleazy and ineffective. I'm glad I don't have to try and defend it.

It is not to "defend" anything to say that for something illegal to have occured that something must have occured that violates some specific provision of applicable laws. It's kind of like Sam Cogar's insistence that a strike by public employees in WV is "illegal". It is not illegal unless the law says that it is- and it doesn't.

As to any presidential candidate's pledge to run a "transparent and ethical" administration, I would suggest that if he has to pledge it rather than to just move on to do it, that such a pledge is suspect from the outset. As ole' A.J. Manchin used to say, "it's just politics". That does not mean that it is illegal.

I see this as a violation of the Hatch Act because there was use of official authority and position to influence the outcome of an election.

That is NOT the same thing as casting a ballot or chatting with friends and family about an election.

I'm tickled pink I don't have to defend this President or his staff.