Bizarre, a top pentagon official harasses a nanny on his Capitol Hill block.

[Anonymous]

I see this kind of behavior all the time, but over neighbor's additions. You would not believe the types of wacky behavior neighbor's will engage in because they are jealous or mad about hammering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I found more disturbing is that the guy doesn't even live on the same street facing block as the family. They share an alley, but he appears to be on another street on the other side of their city block. So basically he was stalking all the other adjoining streets to find abusers of the VPP? Utterly bizarre.

I'd "get it" if the nanny was parking in "his" spot everyday. But she didn't even park on his street. How weird.

Honestly, it sounds racially motivated.

That was my first thought as well- why is this bugging him so much?

My second thought was - why is he home all the time during the day?

Did you read the WAPO article? He is retired.

In that role, his LinkedIn page says, the retired Army officer “personally advises the Secretary of Defense and senior leadership on the public impact of proposed policies, programs, operations, and activities of the Department.”

He's not retired, as in home all day puttering in the garden. He is "retired military," which means he is no longer in the Army. He is employed by the DoD in a civilian job.

Does this mean he's collecting his Army pension while also collecting $150K+ as an SES?

Yes. That's how it works around here. Where have you been?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This story was on the Today show today. I hope the idiot gets canned.

No way!!! Nail in the coffin.

[Anonymous]

Today's wapo article states the he was in charge of reporters' access authorizations post 9-11, and that he was a stickler of making reporters come in twice per week to maintain their credentials, even those who were overseas reporting from war zones. Seems like wapo (and any other reporter) has a reason to really milk this story as much as they can - karma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not just call park services and report them?

Parking enforcement will roll up, see the VPP, shrug their shoulders and drive off. The whole situation is very sad really. Nanny harassed and victimized. Nanny's employers concerned about their child and caretaker. A career probably ruined. Waste of police and court time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. What an entitled jerk.

Sounds like 99 percent of DCUM posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I found more disturbing is that the guy doesn't even live on the same street facing block as the family. They share an alley, but he appears to be on another street on the other side of their city block. So basically he was stalking all the other adjoining streets to find abusers of the VPP? Utterly bizarre.

I'd "get it" if the nanny was parking in "his" spot everyday. But she didn't even park on his street. How weird.

Honestly, it sounds racially motivated.

That was my first thought as well- why is this bugging him so much?

My second thought was - why is he home all the time during the day?

Did you read the WAPO article? He is retired.

In that role, his LinkedIn page says, the retired Army officer “personally advises the Secretary of Defense and senior leadership on the public impact of proposed policies, programs, operations, and activities of the Department.”

He's not retired, as in home all day puttering in the garden. He is "retired military," which means he is no longer in the Army. He is employed by the DoD in a civilian job.

Does this mean he's collecting his Army pension while also collecting $150K+ as an SES?

Yes. That's how it works around here. Where have you been?

Public service, folks, it's all about public service.

[Anonymous]

What a first class di*k he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story was on the Today show today. I hope the idiot gets canned.

No way!!! Nail in the coffin.

A longtime public servant makes a dumb mistake over a minor matter and you want him fired? Yet try to screen out violent offenders from jobs or drug dealers from subsidized housing and the liberal lobby cries unfairness and discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story was on the Today show today. I hope the idiot gets canned.

No way!!! Nail in the coffin.

A longtime public servant makes a dumb mistake over a minor matter and you want him fired? Yet try to screen out violent offenders from jobs or drug dealers from subsidized housing and the liberal lobby cries unfairness and discrimination.

Here's a deal. Both groups get sent to Alaska for life. OK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story was on the Today show today. I hope the idiot gets canned.

No way!!! Nail in the coffin.

A longtime public servant makes a dumb mistake over a minor matter and you want him fired? Yet try to screen out violent offenders from jobs or drug dealers from subsidized housing and the liberal lobby cries unfairness and discrimination.

Dumb mistake? That's an interesting characterization. I'm not sure the nanny who was victimized or the prosecutor saw it that way. And do you have contact info for this liberal lobby of which you speak? Thx.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story was on the Today show today. I hope the idiot gets canned.

No way!!! Nail in the coffin.

A longtime public servant makes a dumb mistake over a minor matter and you want him fired? Yet try to screen out violent offenders from jobs or drug dealers from subsidized housing and the liberal lobby cries unfairness and discrimination.

Dumb mistake? That's an interesting characterization. I'm not sure the nanny who was victimized or the prosecutor saw it that way. And do you have contact info for this liberal lobby of which you speak? Thx.

It's now illegal in DC to bar convicted offenders from public housing and shelters, but it's ok to ruin this guy's life over a note and swiping a couple of pieces of metal?

[Anonymous]

Wonder what the nanny and her employers were so afraid of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wonder what the nanny and her employers were so afraid of?

A proven criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder what the nanny and her employers were so afraid of?

A proven criminal.

At a minimum they probably have a Zoe Baird problem (perhaps worse if the nanny doesn't have papers) and they feared that the guy was on to them. They thought it was better to catch him doing something stupid and go on the offensive.