So Kellyanne Conway has been found guilty of violating the Hatch Act

[malaise]

http://fortune.com/2019/06/13/kellyanne-conway-hatch-act/

A Federal Agency Just Recommended Kellyanne Conway Be Fired.
A federal watchdog agency recommended Thursday that President Donald Trump fire one of his most ardent defenders, counselor Kellyanne Conway, for repeatedly violating a law that limits political activity by government workers.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which is unrelated to special counsel Robert Mueller’s office, said in a letter to Trump that Conway has been a “repeat offender” of the Hatch Act by disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media.

Trump and Vice President Mike Pence are exempt from the Hatch Act, but there are no exceptions for White House employees.

[Gothmog]

1. Lock her up

[spanone]

2. If she has 'repeatedly' violated the act, why are we just hearing about it now?

She's been doing this since day one.

[onenote]

12. This isn't the first time OSC has issued a report on her violations

It is not uncommon for an initial report to come with a recommendation of reprimand. They're recommending she be terminated because she has ignored the earlier warnings.

[maddiemom]

22. I remember, early on, she was plugging Ivanka's clothing line when it first came up.

[Takket]

3. Forgive my dumb question...

Isn’t the traditional action, when police/courts believe someone is a criminal, to obtain a warrant and arrest that person, rather than sending a LETTER to their employer kindly asking for the person to be fired?

[marybourg]

5. There's no court or police involved,

nor any finding of guilt. An administrative agency charged wth enforcing the Hatch Act has made a charge against her .Anything more is media click bait and pot stirring. That's not to say that the charge is untrue, of course.

[Takket]

6. Is the Hatch Act a criminal statute with assigned punishments?

[marybourg]

8. Google it and report back. We all have a

lot to learn.

[onenote]

13. No.

With respect to "civil service" employees, the findings of the OSC can be acted upon by the Merit Systems Protection Board -- a separate independent agency with suspension or removal from office the harshest penalties that they can impose. Conway, however, is not a "civil service employee" within the jurisdiction of the MSPB and whether any action is taken in response to the OSC report is completely left to Trump's discretion (not that it would matter much since Trump has refused to fill vacancies on the MSPB, leaving it without a quorum and, soon, without any members at all).

[StarfishSaver]

19. +1

[Takket]

24. So this letter is as meaningful as one that I would have written?

That is what I’m getting from this.

[onenote]

25. Well, this one will get more press coverage than one you would have written.

But in terms of legal effect? Pretty much equally meaningful.

[grantcart]

38. Usually their is an investigation and a finding and if someone is found guilty they agree to make ch

For example the Kerry campaign was accused of violating the Hatch act because they had a campaign event at a a NASA facility.

The OSC found that they hadn't violated it because no Federal employees were employed at this facility.

Never has anyone violated it so brazenly.

Curious what husband George thinks.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Thank you!

[rownesheck]

4. I hate Kellyanne Conway

but how does the hatch act make sense? You can't disparage political opponents while working in your job? Well, wouldn't trump be in violation of that, along with Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and any senator running for president, etc.? What am I not understanding? Asking for real cuz i am truly ignorant to the law even after reading it.

[marybourg]

7. Doesn't apply to Pres. or VP.

Does apply to all other Executive Branch employees. Congresspeople are not part of the Executive Branch. Always worked before.

[rownesheck]

9. Oh.

The explanation of the law I read said "government employees can't disparage political opponents."

[StarfishSaver]

17. Not exactly

Certain federal executive branch employees are prohibited from using their "official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election." This includes a prohibition against disparaging a political candidate but also includes, among other things, endorsing or encouraging the defeat of any candidate for partisan political office.

It applies to most federal branch employees, but not appointees who are Senate confirmed.

[grantcart]

39. Elected officials are exempt

[mgardener]

15. When Trump was running in 2016

I called my Congressperson's office to ask if she supported him.
The person in her office told me she could not use the official email, website etc to support a candidate.
Tax dollars cannot be used in that manner.

[StarfishSaver]

18. That's true, but separate from the Hatch Act which applies to the executive branch

There are other laws that prohibit Members of Congress from engaging in partisan political activity using taxpayer dollars.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Huckabee has violated it, but not as regularly and clearly as Conway

The Act doesn't prohibit a federal employee from criticizing political opponents. It prohibits federal employees from, among other things, engaging in certain partisan political activity, including making statements for or against the election of candidates, while on duty, on government property, or using federal equipment and resources.

The Hatch Act doesn't apply to Congress, only to executive branch employees.

[True Blue American]

21. Sarah is saying

Buhbye! Leaving! She went to see the Queen, never will again.

[RainCaster]

14. So the OSC sends a memo to DFT who doesn't care...

and this same skulldugery keeps going on...

When will we jail the swamp?

[hibbing]

16. Ho hum, just another day in America n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. No finding of guilt, no court of law, no charges, FAKE thread title. Bogus. . . nt

[WillowTree]

40. This!

[captain queeg]

23. KellyAnn is the Sea Hag from Popeye n/t

[Raven123]

26. An Act without teeth. Its up to POTUS to decide whether to fire Conway.

[StarfishSaver]

32. The Act actually has lots of teeth and has been very effective

The problem is that this lawless president ignores the law. The problem lies with Trump, not the law.

[shanny]

27. um, not "found" guilty I think;

"deemed" guilty, absolutely. Guilty? you betcha.

[Duppers]

28. Hasn't all of his cabinet and family done this?

Family members are on the taxpayers payroll too.

Why pick her out. Besides, the DoJ will not do a thing.

[StarfishSaver]

33. Cabinet members aren't bound by the Hatch Act

And, as many things as she's done wrong, I don't think Ivanka has actually violated the Hatch Act.

[Gothmog]

29. Analysis: "Blah, blah, blah." This 2-week-old Kellyanne Conway clip looks exceedingly painful today

Link to tweet

[malaise]

30. Forget not that the scumbag for whom the Hatch Act is named

He was thrilled to fly on AF1 with the Con. He supported him to the end.

[Gothmog]

31. From the Washington Post

Karma works

Here’s the next part of Conway’s recent appearance:

REPORTER: I’m quoting the Office of Special Counsel which says —

CONWAY: I don’t really care. Listen —

QUESTION: — [inaudible] mixed official government business with political —

CONWAY: Right, blah, blah. Listen —

QUESTION: — [inaudible] about candidates in the Alabama special election.

CONWAY: Right. Blah, blah, blah. Right. I’m sorry, are you talking about something from a year and half ago? Do you have — do you have a relevant question for today? Because I’m happy to answer today.
Just two weeks after declaring Hatch Act questions to be not “relevant” because they were old, she has some fresh violations to answer for.

And the coup de grace:

CONWAY: If you’re trying to silence me through the Hatch Act, it’s not going to work.

REPORTER: I’m not trying to silence you. The Office of Special Counsel said you violated it.

OTHER REPORTER: Kellyanne, is — is Roy Moore a standalone case or do you — or should we expect —

CONWAY (turning to first reporter): Let me know when the jail sentence starts.

Here was a top White House official all but scoffing at ethics rules and suggesting this was all just old news.

[StarfishSaver]

34. Different Hatch

The Hatch Act was passed in 1939 and was named after Carl Hatch, a Democratic senator.

[malaise]

35. Damn

My bad

[StarfishSaver]

36. Common mistake

[malaise]

37. I should have checked

Careless

[WillowTree]

41. Don't see that kind of humble admission very often around here these days.

Or around much of anywhere these days, for that matter.

I respect that.

[malaise]

42. That's why our planet in this mess

Everyone is perfect - and never gets anything wrong