Michelle Bachmann stiffs her campaign staff, they retaliate by ratting to the feds


38 Responses to “Michelle Bachmann stiffs her campaign staff, they retaliate by ratting to the feds”

  1. Ari B. says:

    Color me unsurprised.

  2. I realize my complaints against client-side in-browser image scaling often fall on deaf ears, but REALLY? An 8.4MB, 5,184 × 3,456 image scaled to 519 × 346? I’d hate to be paying your bandwidth bills.

    Edit: Well, now it’s been replaced by an image with a sensible file size, but I still can’t understand why it’s been scaled to 1,000 × 667, rather than the size at which it will actually be displayed.

  3. dragonfrog says:

    I wonder if the NDA is really relevant anyway

    - A contract to commit crime is automatically invalid – would concealing knowledge of illegal activity not be a crime, rendering any NDA void?

    - How likely is it really that the feds will seriously investigate any tips they receive, and that any investigation they do undertake will amount to anything?

    • xunker says:

      Without seeing the language of the NDA it’s impossible to say for sure what’s what here, but we can assume a few things. I’ve signed quite a few NDAs in my life, and when my lawyer goes through them I see mentions like this some times. As he has explained it to me:

      It’s not there to make you not report a crime since it’s illegal to contractually require someone to not report a crime, like you say. With a proper serverability clause, though, the whole NDA isn’t void, only to offending clause.

      Instead, these clauses are likely here to scare you in to not reporting a crime because, under these kind of clauses, if you report a crime and the report gets dismissed or gets a court acquittal, they can then sue you for having reported them “fraudulently”.  I use fraudulently in quotes, because it doesn’t mean that they didn’t do anything wrong, it just means they weren’t found guilty of doing anything wrong (which are two different things).

      Anyway, one school of thought says it’s there to bully you in to not reporting things because there is a small chance the charge won’t stick and you’ll get sued. So unless you are 101% sure your accusal will carry weight you are opening yourself up for a law suit.

      Of course, the counterpoint to this is that it could also be here so a law-abiding organization has recourse if it gets hit with a legitimately-fraudulent (see what I did there?) accusal, too.

      • billstreeter says:

        But couldn’t they still sue (and or fire) you for “fraudulently” reporting a crime even without the NDA? Kinda makes the NDA totally mute and pointless doesn’t it? 

        • xunker says:

          True true, I am not a lawyer so I don’t understand their motivations in every case. Wheels within wheels, etc.

          There are a lot of pointless things in such contracts — once I signed one that stated, explicitly, that my term of employment is terminated on the event of my death.  Of course, that could give the term “working stiff” a whole new dimension..

  4. lknope says:

    I’m no criminal mastermind but…wouldn’t it make more sense to pay people to keep their mouths shut rather than not pay them unless they keep their mouths shut?

  5. dave3 says:

    Maybe God told her not to pay? 
    After all, she’s only following HIS plan. Right?

  6. soylent_plaid says:

    As I’ve said before, Republicans: eminently principled people.

  7. Jason says:

    But .. but .. but .. she’s a god fearing Christian! Impossible!!

    • Christopher says:

      Ah, but Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven.

      She’s doing them a favor by not paying them.

    • niktemadur says:

      Seems she cherry-picks her moral choices as much as she does the bible, probably with some BS about “the ends justifies the means”. 

      It would seem that God’s righteous love of guns and for-profit medical systems, as well as his hatred of gays, worker’s rights and Kenyans, is in perilous political ground in one of only two countries (the other is Israel, of course) that have ever mattered in the 5,000 year history of the Universe.

  8. Jellodyne says:

    Those people had ONE JOB, to elect a crazy lady to the White House. If they can’t do one simple job, maybe they don’t deserve pay.

    • TooGoodToCheck says:

      I feel like everyone who’s _not_ Michelle Bachman should pick up the tab.  Because by completely failing at that job, they’ve done a greater public service than I am ever likely to do.

      We should be starting a collection now to pay them to work for for Paul Ryan 2016 too

  9. angusm says:

    At what point in the proceedings does saving $25,000 by stiffing your employees stop looking like a good idea? And how long ago did we pass that point?

  10. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    Omerta is a ‘family’ value, right?

  11. Baldhead says:

    Is it just me or is there a pattern with republican candidates screwing over their own staff? The US economy must be terrible indeed for people to put up with this and continue to believe this party has an interest other than self interest.

  12. I_hate_turtles says:

    Please don’t propagate the original author’s assumption that the 2 (NDA agreement, non-payment) are somehow related.  Yes there might be terms in the NDA that are bad and somehow affect the staffer’s decision, but forcing users not to disclose illegal activities wouldn’t be one of them.  Such terms are not valid and can safely be ignored by the staffers.  If *that* were the problem they should be smart enough to know that (they were presidential campaign staffers for god’s sake) and sign it and move on.  So I’m sure that the motivations were otherwise and this hiding of illegal activity clause is just sensationalistic.

    • bkad says:

      [Edited for brevity.]
      I agree with this. There’s no reason to believe, without support of the original article and in defiance of common sense, that the confidentiality agreement actually prohibits disclosing illegal activities.That’s sensationalistic. Now, it might be a bad agreement, I can’t speak to that….

  13. CastanhasDoPara says:

    That’s a mighty fine preemptive self-Streisanding she just gave herself. What a goof.

Leave a Reply