Hatch Act of 1939, "who needs it"?

Someone on Free Republic mentioned this in connection with the Strzok hearings.  So, what is the Hatch Act?

Here are its provisions:

• restricts political campaign activities by federal employees

• It provides that persons below the policy-making level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen, but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns

Now, how does Strzok justify saying that "we will stop him", meaning Trump?  Who is "we"?  Democrats?  This is engaging in political activity, is it not?  Justifying the statement in front of Congress, regardless of context, does not change that fact, and therefore does not excuse it.  Indeed, labeling Trump's behavior in a pejorative way not only in text messages during an investigation, but in front of Congress itself, is an example of what the law is attempting to control.  Federal employees must not behave this way.  Besides, they KNOW this.  That is why the behavior was being covered up for so long.

 This is why Washington DC is out of control.  You have almost 90 percent of the population of that city acting as if this is reasonable and justifiable behavior.  This behavior will not fly in most of the rest of the country.

Strzok is attempting to brazen his way through the testimony.  Washington DC and the Democrat party are also trying to brazen their way out of this.  If they aren't brazenly justifying illegal behavior, then they are lying about it outright.

They are acting like a lynch mob that has taken the law in their own hands.  They are out of control.

.
...  A further thought...


Didn't Strzok admit political bias when he said this?  How can he deny political bias after saying what he said?  It doesn't matter that Trump's behavior was, if Trump's behavior was NOT illegal.  If Trump's behavior was political, then what the hell is the FBI doing investigating him?

Furthermore, what was illegal about anything that Trump has done?  Even if there was "collusion"?  What law was there to control "collusion" even if it did occur?

Strzok has all but admitted his guilt, yet the Democrats applaud.  It is like they think they have the right to break the law at will, and there isn't a thing that you can do about it.  Yes, and that would be true in Washington DC, where 90 percent of these people vote for Democrats.  It is like the Democrats want to criminalize an opposition party.

You are guilty, therefore, if you are behaving horribly, even if there is no law against it.  Whatever our overlords, the Democrats, do against you to punish you for your "bad behavior", is certainly justifiable, and cannot be questioned.  So, they seem to believe.

Finally,

The Democrats like to talk about "rule of law".  How do they square Strzok's behavior with the rule of law?

Strzok called himself a patriot.  Who does Strzok serve?  If he doesn't serve the law as written in the Constitution, and the laws derived therefrom, then how is he a patriot?  How do you square his claim of patriotism with his political loyalties, if these are not in accordance with the law?

How can those who applauded his words be on the side of the law?  If Strzok is innocent of bias or anything else, then why did he fail a polygraph?