this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025
634 points (99.1% liked)
Actually Infuriating
771 readers
2 users here now
Community Rules:
Be Civil
Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.
Content should be actually infuriating
Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.
Mark NSFW/NSFL posts
Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.
Keep it Legal and Moral
No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.
Partner Communities
- Mildly Infuriating
- Furiously Infuriating
- Memes
- Political Memes
- Lemmy Shitpost
- Not The Onion
- You Should Know
- Lemmy Be Wholesome
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
arguably. there are exemptions in the hatch act for senate-confirmed appointees. the secretary of agriculture seems like it would be one such appointee with hatch act exemptions. they could potentially make a case that these messages are communications from the secretary of agriculture, not from any actual experts or public servants. if it is meant to be a communication from the secretary of agriculture, one could argue there is an exemption in the hatch act for this specific activity (even though the actual communication goes through other non-senate-approved government employees/appointeed, many if not most of whom do not have exemptions to the hatch act, but do you punish the gun or the entity that pulled the trigger? (yes both would be nice but let's play a different game instead)
this seems to be what i've picked up on reading