Replies

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew

Legal Beagles watching Meadows:
What does this language in the this provision of the Hatch Act mean?

(1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an employee—

(A) the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post; and

(B) who is—

(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or

(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.

The POTUS Chief of Staff has duties and responsibilities outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post.

That means he can engage in political activities when he’s an employee paid by the Executive Office of the President, or a Senate confirmed political appointee.

The statue recognizes that being Chief Of Staff is a 24/7 job and your responsibilities can still exist regardless of where you are.

In other words, you are not an employee with set work hours and a set work location.

Federal employees CAN engage in campaign activities — they just can’t do it at work.

Meadows fits into the exception referenced in this statute because of the nature of his job.

This exception is EXPRESSLY applicable to employees of the Executive Office of the President — which the Chief of Staff is a part of.

3:50 PM · Aug 28, 2023

https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1696294278203691496

Jackie 🇺🇸
@Jackie9900

It means the charges Fanni Pants brought against Meadows “in furtherance of her contemptible conspiracy to commit election fraud and interference” can’t be held against him for merely performing his duties on the job and aren’t indicative of a crime. It’s doubtful that making phone calls or setting up meetings as she alleges would fall into the exception part! (My non attorney, observation only opinion!)

5:28 PM · Aug 28, 2023

Rambling Infantryman
@Veteran4Amer1ca
·
2h
Which is to say, you can’t prosecute a person doing their job! Meadows did nothing illegal that warrants this lawfare.