Jennifer Beck can now do anything she wants

Oh, This is Rich (0.00 / 0)

If such a meeting occurred, then this in clear violation of not only common sense, but also the law and DOJ ethics.

Bush Pioneer/appointee Chris Christie and lobbyist-legislator Jennifer Beck are giving folks just another Republican example of "leaders" who claim to champion ethics yet blatantly disregard such ethics in their own lives when it comes to furthering their own political careers and agenda.  

Some people sell out for cold hard cash, some for repaving their driveway and some sell out for a shot at statewide office.  No matter the reason, if this story is true, then its crystal clear that the stones these two paragons of virtue so often throw into others' houses are dwarfed by their own hypocrisy and ambition.

If she has any hopes of having any credibility on anything at all going forward, Jennifer Beck should issue a sworn statement that she did not meet with Bush Pioneer Chris Christie.

And, if Beck did meet with him, well, she should to let the public know when this backroom meeting occurred, how often they met and what they spoke about.

---

by: Joshua Henne @ Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 15:08:44 PM CDT

Check the Hatch Act (0.00 / 0)

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the Hatch Act only applies to civil service employees, not appointees.

---

by: Jim33 @ Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 19:53:40 PM CDT

Ambiguous...... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.slate.com/id/1050/

The law most often cited is the Hatch Act (1939). The law passed following several big corruption cases involving the burgeoning post-New Deal bureaucracy, and was aimed at the civil service. But by its terms, it applies to almost anyone on the U.S. government payroll. Only the president, vice president, and appointees requiring Senate confirmation (such as Cabinet secretaries) are exempt.

I always though US Attorneys required Senate confirmation....but;

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/...

The Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005 is news today because it has enabled the President -- through the office of the Attorney General -- to arrange for US Attorneys to resign and then to replace them with political appointees, in the pejorative sense of that phrase, who do not need to be confirmed by the Senate.

I strongly suspect that Christie still falls under the Hatch act as he was on of the early ones that was actually confirmed by the Senate.

Weird shit, eh?  Why would the "Patriot" act make it more easy for a president to appoint politically active US Attorneys?  Just one more indication that the Patriot Act was/is just an "act" and the real agenda here is more raw imperial power to the executive branch.

Meanwhile, no one in the Bush administration is going to investigate, let alone prosecute, Christie for anything short of kidnapping and raping the neighbor's hamster at noon in Times Square.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 00:23:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

Christie WAS confirmed by the Senate, right?  So, as I read that, it might make him exempt from the Hatch Act.

Still, because of the way the Bush admin operates, all they have to do is declare him exempt and he is.  That ambiguity makes it even easier not to hold Christie accountable for policking on the job.

---

by: Jim33 @ Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 17:53:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

US Attorneys (0.00 / 0)

are not exempt from the Hatch Act.  Quite the contrary they are under even greater restrictions than others.  See this page.

Will commit political science for food.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 20:20:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only in-term replacements (0.00 / 0)

For someone who is being appointed to a position vacant due to a term ending they still require Senate confirmation.

---

by: huntsu @ Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:50:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another thought to consider (0.00 / 0)

You were speculating Christie's possible strategies in the run-up to an '09 gubernatorial election that might include him on the ticket.

Your options were prosecute Dems selectively, as he has done, or none to avoid the accusations of partisanship.

However, Sarah Palin so far has been doing pretty well with a meteoric rise rarely if ever seen.

Did you know she got there by sticking a knife in the back of Republican powerhouse Gov. Murkowski and his whole family?  She'd sell her children if it would score political points (and she did jeopardize the health of that infant by exploiting him as a prop before he's old enough to have immunizations).

Palin is getting a lot of mileage over the fact she went after a fellow Republican.  It makes her look like a real corruption buster.  I doubt this is a dynamic Christie and his brother are overlooking.

Also, look into the Kyrillos/Christie relationship.  It goes back further and may be the stronger of those alliances.
 

---

by: Jim33 @ Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 20:13:07 PM CDT

I Predict Palin's Fall Will Be As "Meteoric"... (0.00 / 0)

as her rise.

And, the impact crater will be huge.

Even if she escapes prosecution and somehow winds up as VP.....she'll eventually be impeached.    Something will catch up to her sooner or later.

I can only imagine the kinds of pressures being applied to anyone in Alaska who has the goods on her.

Meanwhile, let's all do whatever we can to keep this dominionist nutjob out of the White House   Sarracuda Stepford makes McCain seem quite sane in comparison.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 00:33:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

She's boastful now that she took down the Murkowski dynasty, but I'm sure that family still has plenty of connections -- and they might just see an Achille's heel.

Turn about is fair play, as they say.

---

by: Jim33 @ Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 18:02:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]