Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the hate on Symone. She didn't assume it was OK. She asked. And was told yes. And proceeded accordingly. You can say she should have pushed back more and assumed she was given bad advice, but that seems a stretch to me. Why all the vindictiveness about this?

Because it seems fishy....she had to have asked in a very narrow way to get a ruling like that, because the answer is obvious....and once OSC got the facts, they weighed in accordingly.

And then there is her blaming everyone else and not taking any responsibility at all. It is very off putting.

Once the OSC heard repeatedly from another candidate who was not satisfied with the answers and threatened to escalate, the OSC changed its ruling.

I wasn't going to vote for the badgerer anyway, but the fact that his strategy is to knock out another candidate rather than become a better candidate himself? Not a good look.

Clearly you haven't dealt with OSC before if you think they would cave to pressure like that. They're kind of hard ass, so there must be legal reasons behind their decision that Symone can't participate in the SB caucus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the hate on Symone. She didn't assume it was OK. She asked. And was told yes. And proceeded accordingly. You can say she should have pushed back more and assumed she was given bad advice, but that seems a stretch to me. Why all the vindictiveness about this?

Because it seems fishy....she had to have asked in a very narrow way to get a ruling like that, because the answer is obvious....and once OSC got the facts, they weighed in accordingly.

And then there is her blaming everyone else and not taking any responsibility at all. It is very off putting.

Once the OSC heard repeatedly from another candidate who was not satisfied with the answers and threatened to escalate, the OSC changed its ruling.

I wasn't going to vote for the badgerer anyway, but the fact that his strategy is to knock out another candidate rather than become a better candidate himself? Not a good look.

I wasn’t going to vote for him anyway, he’s not a strong candidate. Still not going to vote for him. But, this was going to happen at some point. If not him, someone else would’ve gone to OSC. It’s a clear violation.

She could never seek the Dem endorsement. She did anyway. This wasn’t unforeseen. The OSC was always going to do this, as soon as anyone brought it to their attention. She’s lucky it happened now, before she got herself in deeper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the hate on Symone. She didn't assume it was OK. She asked. And was told yes. And proceeded accordingly. You can say she should have pushed back more and assumed she was given bad advice, but that seems a stretch to me. Why all the vindictiveness about this?

Because it seems fishy....she had to have asked in a very narrow way to get a ruling like that, because the answer is obvious....and once OSC got the facts, they weighed in accordingly.

And then there is her blaming everyone else and not taking any responsibility at all. It is very off putting.

Once the OSC heard repeatedly from another candidate who was not satisfied with the answers and threatened to escalate, the OSC changed its ruling.

I wasn't going to vote for the badgerer anyway, but the fact that his strategy is to knock out another candidate rather than become a better candidate himself? Not a good look.

Who do you escalate from after the OSC? And which candidate? Was it Sims or Krieger (or both)?

The Hatch Act seems like a mess on the subject of independent candidates in partisan local elections. It's clear that feds in designated high-fed areas like Arlington can be "independent candidates" in local elections that become "partisan" for reasons beyond the candidate's control. But it's less clear what "independent candidate" means, or what activities by a candidate would transform an otherwise "independent" candidacy into a partisan one. There's authority that seeking a party's endorsement could do that, but not that it necessarily would.

There's a big difference between a truly "independent candidate"--who touts their independence from either party, seeks endorsements from partisan and non-partisan groups alike, passively accepts contributions and volunteer assistance from a party without asking, doesn't employ party operatives in their campaign, and never holds themselves out as partisan--and a candidate who is "independent" in name only and campaigns like a party nominee would.

There's a lot of speculation about what the ethics authorities did or didn't tell Symone and vice versa. Much of that speculation is driven by conventional wisdom about the Hatch Act. Without getting into Symone's forthrightness or acceptance of responsibility, I think it's worth asking whether the conventional wisdom is correct.

Signed, NP who doesn't plan to vote for Symone regardless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the hate on Symone. She didn't assume it was OK. She asked. And was told yes. And proceeded accordingly. You can say she should have pushed back more and assumed she was given bad advice, but that seems a stretch to me. Why all the vindictiveness about this?

Because it seems fishy....she had to have asked in a very narrow way to get a ruling like that, because the answer is obvious....and once OSC got the facts, they weighed in accordingly.

And then there is her blaming everyone else and not taking any responsibility at all. It is very off putting.

Once the OSC heard repeatedly from another candidate who was not satisfied with the answers and threatened to escalate, the OSC changed its ruling.

I wasn't going to vote for the badgerer anyway, but the fact that his strategy is to knock out another candidate rather than become a better candidate himself? Not a good look.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the hate on Symone. She didn't assume it was OK. She asked. And was told yes. And proceeded accordingly. You can say she should have pushed back more and assumed she was given bad advice, but that seems a stretch to me. Why all the vindictiveness about this?

Because it seems fishy....she had to have asked in a very narrow way to get a ruling like that, because the answer is obvious....and once OSC got the facts, they weighed in accordingly.

And then there is her blaming everyone else and not taking any responsibility at all. It is very off putting.

This, specifically. There is no way a lawyer who is a fed doesn't understand the Hatch Act. This was all a set-up.

I also feel as though it’s too obvious and perfect to not have been planned/set up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the hate on Symone. She didn't assume it was OK. She asked. And was told yes. And proceeded accordingly. You can say she should have pushed back more and assumed she was given bad advice, but that seems a stretch to me. Why all the vindictiveness about this?

Because it seems fishy....she had to have asked in a very narrow way to get a ruling like that, because the answer is obvious....and once OSC got the facts, they weighed in accordingly.

And then there is her blaming everyone else and not taking any responsibility at all. It is very off putting.

This, specifically. There is no way a lawyer who is a fed doesn't understand the Hatch Act. This was all a set-up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the hate on Symone. She didn't assume it was OK. She asked. And was told yes. And proceeded accordingly. You can say she should have pushed back more and assumed she was given bad advice, but that seems a stretch to me. Why all the vindictiveness about this?

Did she the okay specifically to run in the Democratic caucus, or just to run generally? I haven’t seen a clear statement on that.

Yes, posting the letter or communication with her agency would go a long way toward establishing her credibility here. (And maybe making it clear whether the candidate who "ratted her out" is being unfair or not.)

I still haven’t seen solid evidence that it was definitely a political rival that did it. I wonder if/how the name got back to Symone, if she in fact does know who pursued this. I’m sorry- “harassed” her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the hate on Symone. She didn't assume it was OK. She asked. And was told yes. And proceeded accordingly. You can say she should have pushed back more and assumed she was given bad advice, but that seems a stretch to me. Why all the vindictiveness about this?

Did she the okay specifically to run in the Democratic caucus, or just to run generally? I haven’t seen a clear statement on that.

Yes, posting the letter or communication with her agency would go a long way toward establishing her credibility here. (And maybe making it clear whether the candidate who "ratted her out" is being unfair or not.)

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the hate on Symone. She didn't assume it was OK. She asked. And was told yes. And proceeded accordingly. You can say she should have pushed back more and assumed she was given bad advice, but that seems a stretch to me. Why all the vindictiveness about this?

Did she the okay specifically to run in the Democratic caucus, or just to run generally? I haven’t seen a clear statement on that.