I do not believe he was a "Bush appointee." Rather, I believe he was a career governemnt employee.
Posted by at April 4, 2006 10:13 PMAppointee or career, who cares?...Glad he's nailed.
The thing that strikes me about this story is how freaking dumb is this guy?
Does the President really appoint the Deputy Press Secretary for the Office of anything? It's not worth pursuing this as a real reflection on Bush in my opinion. Though everyone can feel free to treat this as another log to throw on the Republican fire I suppose...
Posted by Mr Furious at April 4, 2006 10:19 PMThough if Chertoff hired him, it might the nail in HIS coffin...
Posted by Mr Furious at April 4, 2006 10:20 PMPeople who make it that high in management and are in their 50's as this guy is - with very few exceptions - are typically career government employees. Which would mean that as an upper level manager, he has been with the Department for many years, too long to have been hired by Chertoff.
One of the few who I can think of that wasn't a "career" government employee is John Miller, currently an Assistant Director of the FBI, used to be with ABC network.
Posted by at April 4, 2006 10:33 PM....been with the Department for many years...
I don't believe there has been a Department of Homeland Security for "many years."
Posted by ann at April 4, 2006 10:52 PMAnon:
You are making some assumptions here. It is equally possible that someone at this level was in their position through the Senior Executive Service process at the Secretary's discretion. It is similar to what I am familiar with here in California, where it is called the Career Executive Assignment program. These are filled by civil servants who are appointed by the Department Director or Agency Secretary after a full background check, and subject to periodic review and can be canned without cause.
The Number Two for the Department's Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs is not likely to be only a civil servant.
Posted by Steve Soto at April 4, 2006 10:52 PMSteve,
With all due respect, I did not make any assumptions. In the first posting, I stated, "I believe," and in the second posting I stated, "typically are career employees." I then provided an example of one who is currently an Assistant Director and has not been a career employee.
As far as Doyle himself, I do not know Doyle. I do know many people is SES positions (both active and retired) with ultra-high security clearances.
I was simply letting you know so that you could correct a very minor error at the earliest possible opportunity.
The one last point I have to make, is that SES positions are not "appointee" positions or at a Secretary's discretion. It is all part of the career development program:
http://www.opm.gov/ses/index_selection.asp
A number of qualified (that's debatable) applicants apply for every opening (excluding presidential appointments), including SES positions, and the applicants are all reviewed by a screening process before the final applicants are sent to a committee with a recommendation.
While there are no "appointments" at anyone's discretion, that does not mean that some are not "chosen" in advance or that the qualifications are not manipulated so that one person will be more qualified than another before the position is ever posted.
p.s., I really like your web site.
Posted by at April 4, 2006 11:20 PMAnon:
Then under the SES program, who actually appoints the person to their job? Who makes the hire after the screening committee makes a recommendation?
Posted by Steve Soto at April 4, 2006 11:58 PMSteve,
The Career Board has a meeting and selects, for example, the final three appiclants and rates them in order of preference: #1, #2, #3, and so on.
It will automatically go to Preference #1, unless they have some type of disciplinary information in their file (i.e., they are under an OPR 'cloud' that usually stays on their record for 2 to 5 years after a previous discipline).
Or, if they are currently under an OPR investigation for an EEO complaint or misuse of a government vehicle or some similar type of infraction. That would prevent them from getting a promotion (but not a lateral transfer to another position).
Another reason it may not go to #1 would be because, after they spend their two year minimum time period in one position, they may have applied for 5 or 6 positions and they may have already taken position "X" before a career board selected them for position "Y."
In cases such as those, it would then Position Y would go to Preference #2. If Preference #2 was currently under an OPR, or under a "cloud" or had already taken another position they applied for, then it would go to Preference #3.
No one appoints anyone to a government position except the president. Unless you consider positions that are "fixed" as an appointment. That would be, as I explained above, a position where they already have someone in mind and they find some qualification that person has that so very few other have (such as speaking Arabic) and they would put that as one of the required qualifications so their "chosen" person would then get the job.
Posted by at April 5, 2006 12:37 AMThe Florida police spokesman was on Greta Van Succubus, and is really pissed at Brian, because the fact that the imaginary 14 year old said she was a cancer patient did not even slow him up.
They are pushing for Federal charges in addition to the state. People with judgement this poor are running homeland security?
Posted by TIKI AL at April 5, 2006 01:52 AMYeah, let's just throw another log on the fire. As if the log throwing were merely the kind of spin and bullshit that characterizes the fascist swine propagandists of this adminstration.
You're right. It's the MEDIA's fault. And the liberals' fault. Not the fault of Republican Party, nor the White House staff, nor the cabinet, nor anyone else.
I, for one, have had enough.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: anyone who votes for a republican in November is worse than a traitor.
Posted by John Palcewski at April 5, 2006 03:38 AMGoddamn...can't these teen trollers at least wait until these girls are 18?
Posted by God Of War at April 5, 2006 07:15 AMQuestion:
Can they charge this guy with transmitting obsecene material to a minor if the person he transmitted it to was not a minor? Regardless of whether he thought she was or not.
Not defending the guy. Just a question on this specific point.
Posted by snark at April 5, 2006 07:20 AMQuestion:
Can they charge this guy with transmitting obsecene material to a minor if the person he transmitted it to was not a minor? Regardless of whether he thought she was or not.
Not defending the guy. Just a question on this specific point.
Posted by snark at April 5, 2006 07:20 AM
*****
Without excusing the perv's actions, it does have the pungent odor of entrapment.
Posted by God Of War at April 5, 2006 07:28 AMAlso, according to what I've read he didn't try to arrange a meet up with her. Can one try to seduce a minor without actually requesting a physical meeting? Did they jump the gun on this?
Just a hypothetical; Can anyone envision this guy employing a defense such as "It was simply two individuals verbalizing their fantasies in a role playing environment with no intention of actually trying to realize them? Maybe claiming he believed she was simply pretending to be a 14 year old girl? Even the fact that he gave "her" his real name and phone number doesn't prove he intended to actually try to meet her or that he believed "she" was who "she" claimed to be. Could such a defense be successful? Afterall, it turns out that that was the almost the truth. The person on the other end of the line was not a 14 year old girl. It was someone pretending to be a 14 year old girl. It was pretend.
It just seems to me that at a certain point they are trying to push the envelope to far to catch these guys. Jailing people for expressing their disturbing fantasies that they may have no intent to act upon is a far cry from jailing someone who actually does assault a child.
Not a lawyer. Just playing devils advocate.
Posted by snark at April 5, 2006 07:36 AMMy understanding is that you cannot transmit porn over the internet to who you believe is a child (intent). Plus, they are alleging he was using government phones and computers.
Posted by at April 5, 2006 10:08 AMRemember all the hell the GOP/media gave the Clinton administration for "the kids" running the White House? At least some of them were Rhodes Scholars (grin)....Love to see the vetting/credentially process of Bush admin is biting them in the ass....
How many pedophiles, klepos, right wing nut jobs, etc.. can one admin hold on too?? (grin)
Posted by pauliebearsf at April 5, 2006 10:19 AMThis guy ain't the first Republican Homeland Security Pervert. Booman reminds us of another.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 5, 2006 01:52 PM