Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, maybe someone was actually harassing her. Maybe someone was emailing her constantly, being abusive. Maybe yelling at her. Maybe calling her employer and complaining in a way that includes personal attacks and words seeking to get her fired.

It is one thing to Force a competitor to back out if seeking the dem endorsement. It is another to do it in an unprofessional and harassing way that could consequences far beyond this election.

Those are the details I would want to know about before accusing her of playing victim here.

+1. I don't know why people are assuming she wasn't wronged.

I also think the people attacking her have never worked for a federal agency. As a federal agency attorney, I would not be at all shocked if (a) she initially got approval, (b) someone kept complaining about her, and (c) higher ups then told her to run as an independent. Many bosses change their mind under pressure, especially in a government bureaucracy.

I am one of the people “attacking” her and while not an attorney I do work for a federal agency. The rules are the rules. I’m not sure why she felt she was the exception, even if she did get what she felt was permission from her ethics counsel.

So much talk of entitlement on AEM, yet the biggest talkers seem to be blind to it in this situation.

Anonymous wrote:Ok, can we all focus now... Symone is out. We can’t stand Cristina. Teron was probably the one who called. Key data dude is a joke. So we are all voting for Dave and Sandy? Not perfect candidates, but the best we got?

I think that's the correct summary of this situation, yes. Pending finding out who really was harassing her about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, maybe someone was actually harassing her. Maybe someone was emailing her constantly, being abusive. Maybe yelling at her. Maybe calling her employer and complaining in a way that includes personal attacks and words seeking to get her fired.

It is one thing to Force a competitor to back out if seeking the dem endorsement. It is another to do it in an unprofessional and harassing way that could consequences far beyond this election.

Those are the details I would want to know about before accusing her of playing victim here.

+1. I don't know why people are assuming she wasn't wronged.

I also think the people attacking her have never worked for a federal agency. As a federal agency attorney, I would not be at all shocked if (a) she initially got approval, (b) someone kept complaining about her, and (c) higher ups then told her to run as an independent. Many bosses change their mind under pressure, especially in a government bureaucracy.

I am one of the people “attacking” her and while not an attorney I do work for a federal agency. The rules are the rules. I’m not sure why she felt she was the exception, even if she did get what she felt was permission from her ethics counsel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, can we all focus now... Symone is out. We can’t stand Cristina. Teron was probably the one who called. Key data dude is a joke. So we are all voting for Dave and Sandy? Not perfect candidates, but the best we got?

Priddy much.

Nicely done!

Anonymous wrote:Ok, can we all focus now... Symone is out. We can’t stand Cristina. Teron was probably the one who called. Key data dude is a joke. So we are all voting for Dave and Sandy? Not perfect candidates, but the best we got?

Priddy much.

Ok, can we all focus now... Symone is out. We can’t stand Cristina. Teron was probably the one who called. Key data dude is a joke. So we are all voting for Dave and Sandy? Not perfect candidates, but the best we got?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, maybe someone was actually harassing her. Maybe someone was emailing her constantly, being abusive. Maybe yelling at her. Maybe calling her employer and complaining in a way that includes personal attacks and words seeking to get her fired.

It is one thing to Force a competitor to back out if seeking the dem endorsement. It is another to do it in an unprofessional and harassing way that could consequences far beyond this election.

Those are the details I would want to know about before accusing her of playing victim here.

+1. I don't know why people are assuming she wasn't wronged.

I also think the people attacking her have never worked for a federal agency. As a federal agency attorney, I would not be at all shocked if (a) she initially got approval, (b) someone kept complaining about her, and (c) higher ups then told her to run as an independent. Many bosses change their mind under pressure, especially in a government bureaucracy.

I can't imagine what government agency, especially nowadays, would OK anyone with running in a partisan caucus. You just can't do that under the Hatch Act. I'm sure she was cleared to run as an independent in the School Board race, because it is technically a non-partisan race. But this caucus stuff, seeking the endorsement, is clearly a violation. And she's a lawyer. It's gross and I don't know why anyone, any fed anyhow, is giving her a pass. The Hatch Act may be dumb (as applied to local races like this) but we all have to live with it.

Yeah I really detest the rules don't apply to me mindset.

then when I get called on it, I'm a victim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, maybe someone was actually harassing her. Maybe someone was emailing her constantly, being abusive. Maybe yelling at her. Maybe calling her employer and complaining in a way that includes personal attacks and words seeking to get her fired.

It is one thing to Force a competitor to back out if seeking the dem endorsement. It is another to do it in an unprofessional and harassing way that could consequences far beyond this election.

Those are the details I would want to know about before accusing her of playing victim here.

+1. I don't know why people are assuming she wasn't wronged.

I also think the people attacking her have never worked for a federal agency. As a federal agency attorney, I would not be at all shocked if (a) she initially got approval, (b) someone kept complaining about her, and (c) higher ups then told her to run as an independent. Many bosses change their mind under pressure, especially in a government bureaucracy.

I can't imagine what government agency, especially nowadays, would OK anyone with running in a partisan caucus. You just can't do that under the Hatch Act. I'm sure she was cleared to run as an independent in the School Board race, because it is technically a non-partisan race. But this caucus stuff, seeking the endorsement, is clearly a violation. And she's a lawyer. It's gross and I don't know why anyone, any fed anyhow, is giving her a pass. The Hatch Act may be dumb (as applied to local races like this) but we all have to live with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, maybe someone was actually harassing her. Maybe someone was emailing her constantly, being abusive. Maybe yelling at her. Maybe calling her employer and complaining in a way that includes personal attacks and words seeking to get her fired.

It is one thing to Force a competitor to back out if seeking the dem endorsement. It is another to do it in an unprofessional and harassing way that could consequences far beyond this election.

Those are the details I would want to know about before accusing her of playing victim here.

+1. I don't know why people are assuming she wasn't wronged.

I also think the people attacking her have never worked for a federal agency. As a federal agency attorney, I would not be at all shocked if (a) she initially got approval, (b) someone kept complaining about her, and (c) higher ups then told her to run as an independent. Many bosses change their mind under pressure, especially in a government bureaucracy.

Here is language from the 2002 Office of Special Counsel opinion that earliest posters have referenced. The opinion is dated January 18, 2002. It seems the law is pretty clear and Symone's ineligibility to participate in the Dems SB caucus is for legal reasons:

"Generally, the Hatch Act prohibits federal executive branch employees, such as
you, from running for public office in a partisan election, i.e., an election in which any
candidate represents, for example, the Democratic or Republican Party. However, the
county in which you reside, XXXX County, is a designated locality pursuant to the Hatch
Act. 5 U.S.C. § 7325; 5 C.F.R. § 733.107. Covered employees residing in designated
localities are permitted to run as independent candidates for election to partisan political
offices in elections for local office in such localities. 5 C.F.R. § 733.103(b)(1).
Therefore, as long as you remain a resident of XXXX County or other designated locality
you may be an independent candidate in a partisan election for local office.

As to your wife’s position as Chair of the XXXX Democratic Committee (XDC)
and her participation in your campaign, the main issue is whether her assistance may
transform your candidacy from independent to partisan. For example, if you solicited or
advertised the endorsement of the Democratic Party or other partisan political party, or
used the resources of XDC or other partisan political party to further your campaign,
these actions could transform your independent candidacy into a partisan one. See
Special Counsel v. Campbell, 58 M.S.P.R. 170 (1993), aff’d, 27 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Thus, although your wife may assist you with your campaign, she may do so in
her personal capacity and not as a representative of the political party."

Well, Dave, Cristina, and Sandy have now all issued statements about this.

So that leaves only two others. I guess we will soon know who it was via process of elimination.

Anonymous wrote:So, maybe someone was actually harassing her. Maybe someone was emailing her constantly, being abusive. Maybe yelling at her. Maybe calling her employer and complaining in a way that includes personal attacks and words seeking to get her fired.

It is one thing to Force a competitor to back out if seeking the dem endorsement. It is another to do it in an unprofessional and harassing way that could consequences far beyond this election.

Those are the details I would want to know about before accusing her of playing victim here.

+1. I don't know why people are assuming she wasn't wronged.

I also think the people attacking her have never worked for a federal agency. As a federal agency attorney, I would not be at all shocked if (a) she initially got approval, (b) someone kept complaining about her, and (c) higher ups then told her to run as an independent. Many bosses change their mind under pressure, especially in a government bureaucracy.

Anonymous wrote:So, maybe someone was actually harassing her. Maybe someone was emailing her constantly, being abusive. Maybe yelling at her. Maybe calling her employer and complaining in a way that includes personal attacks and words seeking to get her fired.

It is one thing to Force a competitor to back out if seeking the dem endorsement. It is another to do it in an unprofessional and harassing way that could consequences far beyond this election.

Those are the details I would want to know about before accusing her of playing victim here.

Is this what happened? Is that what you’re saying?

So, maybe someone was actually harassing her. Maybe someone was emailing her constantly, being abusive. Maybe yelling at her. Maybe calling her employer and complaining in a way that includes personal attacks and words seeking to get her fired.

It is one thing to Force a competitor to back out if seeking the dem endorsement. It is another to do it in an unprofessional and harassing way that could consequences far beyond this election.

Those are the details I would want to know about before accusing her of playing victim here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's trying to paint herself as a victim. We don't all have to fall for that.

Yeah, I don’t get it. If she were right from the beginning, whatever “harassment” campaign an opponent tried to escalate to her agency (or however it happened; I’m not totally clear) would be irrelevant. So, something was clearly off.

Agreed. If her actions were fully in compliance with the agency's original approval to run as an independent, then (presumably) no amount of harassment or pressure should have changed that approval. She needs to be mad at the agency for caving or, probably more so, herself for running more as a Dem than as an Independent.

Anonymous wrote:She's trying to paint herself as a victim. We don't all have to fall for that.

Yeah, I don’t get it. If she were right from the beginning, whatever “harassment” campaign an opponent tried to escalate to her agency (or however it happened; I’m not totally clear) would be irrelevant. So, something was clearly off.