Because Hillary is an omnipotent being whose every move is some diabolical chess move that affects all things in the universe. Duh!
8 Likes
Because Fox.
HRC was a cabinet officer: nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate. All such appointees are “political appointees”, not employees. Employees have employment rights; political appointees, per the Constitution, are only in office at “the pleasure of the president”.
The form Fox is on about is known to anyone who’s been an EMPLOYEE of a federal government agency or department. There are millions of such employees, and more millions of such ex-employees. There are also, at any given time in Washington, thousands of former political appointees and former elected official, mostly now working in lobbying concerns and so-called think tanks. Many of those former political appointees and elected officials, to say nothing of thousands of former employees now working in more politicized positions in and around WDC, would be familiar with the concept of an employment separation form.
Let’s say I was at one time an employee of a federal agency (which, I was). Assume I spent, say, a couple of years working as employee with a federal agency, then left, yet continued to work after leaving on a contract or case-by-case basis. I’d sign an employee separation form when I left permanent employment, but I’d not be called up to sign such a form as a contract worker - even tho I could be working out of the same physical location on the same sorts of issues. But I would be bound by the terms of the contract I worked under and any related secrecy oaths, both general and specific, whether administered orally or, as is more common, in writing (There are a large number of federal laws and regulations that reference the specific requirement of an oath.), and the commitments associated with those oaths would, on their terms, NOT end upon the contract work ending.
Next, assume time went by, as well as a few administrations, and eventually I was appointed directly into a position within a federal agency, where I stayed for a few years before moving on to another federal agency and moving around among jobs in the latter. As an appointee, I would be bound by the same sorts of oaths that bind some employees and contractors, and more, and so I would NOT be called upon to have to sign a separation form on leaving that position. That would be not only because I was not serving as an “employee” during the periods I was serving in those agencies by appointment, but also because I would be bound by the general oath administered on assuming each position, plus any other additional oaths, whether administered orally or in writing, as called upon. And THOSE oaths would extend even further, in terms of each of information and over time, than either employment or contract.
11 Likes
The coverup is even worse than was originally suspected!
2 Likes
Oh brother. Now we get to spend the next 2 weeks listening to them demand that she sign another one, under oath, on camera, etc. etc. etc. They’ll probably subpoena her to testify before the House and dare her to refuse to do it while there.
BTW, Suzy says hi…
3 Likes
This was a pretty big deal, her not signing is key. Now the issue becomes why the hell did our last three Secretaries of State not sign one, and also is ANYONE in that place signing these things. Wow.
1 Like
LOL, I think State told the RNC and Fox to go “F” themselves. I love it!!
3 Likes
That’s a little different. This is not a secrecy thing, this is a turn over documents thing. Once you leave State Dept. you should sign one even if you are going to DoD to work. It’s separation from that Department. These need to be signed and Docs need to be turned in.
The real story here is why apparently NO ONE is signing these. In NO way can Hillary be criticized for this particular thing because apparently this form does not get used… Unreal.
2 Likes
Right, seems the rules were all the same, but if that’s what you got out of this maybe you should try a different site.
One Congressional Republican hand diddles in trivia while the other simply diddles.
No, that won’t happen. That is, I wouldn’t put it past the GOP to pull a stunt of asking or demanding she sign one, but she won’t because she doesn’t need to because she never had to in the first place.
The secretary of state for the US is NOT “an employee”. That role is a CABINET position. The holder of that cabinet position is bound by the oath of office. A person who has been nominated to serve as a cabinet minister and had that appointment approved by the Senate then serves at the pleasure of the president and otherwise subject to IMPEACHMENT proceedings in Congress.
Meanwhile, no “employee” of any federal government agency is subject to dismissal at the pleasure of the president or is otherwise subject to impeachment proceedings by Congress.
This is not rocket surgery, folks. This is Fox thinking you all are dumb as rocks.
3 Likes
The exit form is required of federal employees—NOT political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president.
It’s a nothing burger—with fries----and Hillary was not in the wrong.
9 Likes
Thank you.
1 Like
No, you have this wrong.
Employees of federal agencies ARE called upon to sign separation forms, as a matter of routine.
The ‘others’ you appears to be considering in your wrong judgment of ‘everyone’ and ‘no one’ would appear to include Colin Powell and Condi Rice - both of whom served under President GW Bush as political officers either subject or not subject to confirmation by the Senate (Rice, before she was nominated for secretary of state, for a time served in the Bush White House in a position that was purely appointment by the president and not subject to Senate review and confirmation.).
4 Likes
Anyone ask about the 27b-6 form?
1 Like
And it had better be the LONG form.
1 Like
facts
Facts
FACTS!!
You’re making me so angry with all of these pesky FACTS!!!
Doesn’t matter. It’s essentially or functionally the same as asking someone “when did you stop beating your wife?” There’s no good answer that’s not an admission. If she signs, this immediately becomes a House perjury investigation under the false pretense of “oversight.” If she refuses and says she never even had to sign one in the first place blah blah appointee not employee something something, then she’s (a) engaging in sophistry the general public won’t understand or have patience to learn about and (b) admitting she is afraid to make those representations under oath, period. Understand right now that this has nothing to do with whether she ever had an obligation to sign it. It’s about whether the GOP/Teatrolls can damage her for refusing to sign it or make those representations under oath NOW.
“Well, we really don’t care whether you had to sign it or not…we’ve got serious questions and concerns and you could clear them all up for us right now if you’d just sign on the dotted line and give us the excuse we need to turn this into a perjury investigation accusastion.”
3 Likes
If you meant ‘slash’ 6 as in http://www.27bslash6.com/overdue.html, shame on you … I had to look it up and now I’m hooked!
1 Like
If Dems were smart, they would call for hearings on this and let the GOP stumble through it before declaring, “We got nuttin’” and we can’t redux in 2016.
No record of HRC brushing any of her teeth, either!
Decay, decay!!