Trump says he won't fire White House counselor Kellyanne Conway over Hatch Act violations
Source: Washington Post
President Trump said Friday that he will not fire White House counselor Kellyanne Conway for repeated violations of the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from engaging in political activity in the course of their work. Well I got briefed on it yesterday, and it looks to me like theyre trying to take away her right to free speech, Trump said during an interview on Fox News.
His comments came a day after the Office of Special Counsel publicly recommended Conways removal from federal office, calling her a repeat offender.
A report submitted to Trump found that Conway violated the Hatch Act on numerous occasions by disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media.
No, Im not going to fire her, Trump said. Shes just a great person. .?.?. Shes got to have a right of responding to questions.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-he-wont-fire-kellyanne-conway-over-hatch-act-violations/2019/06/14/76f31a94-8e9f-11e9-adf3-f70f78c156e8_story.html
Original article -
Well, I got briefed on it yesterday, and it looks to me like theyre trying to take away her right to free speech, President Trump said during an interview on Fox News Channel.
A report submitted to Trump found that Conway violated the Hatch Act on numerous occasions by disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/06/14/trump-says-he-wont-fire-white-house-counselor-kellyanne-conway-over-hatch-act-violations/?utm_term=.4458f90ff9b3&wpisrc=al_politics__alert-politics&wpmk=1
There is a law. It's called the "Hatch Act". I (as a former fed) had to follow it and we had to have mandatory training every year about it. The fear of punishment/removal was so ingrained in us that for years, I was afraid to attend any political function or even have a yard sign or bumper sticker. It was that bad. It was something that became law the 2nd Roosevelt term in 1939 spearheaded by Carl Hatch (no relation to Orin Hatch), and was revised over time as circumstances/technology changed.
Here is a recent Congressional Research Service paper on it - https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44469.pdf (PDF)
machoneman
(4,006 posts)pwb
(11,261 posts)Letter carriers all over the country talking politics after getting screwed over by republicans at every turn? Yea, let's do away with the hatch act pukes.
BumRushDaShow
(128,918 posts)I am a retired fed and the Hatch Act was no joke. It was literally to the point that nothing related to any "candidate" was even permitted to be hanging in a cubicle (I could only have a printout of the "official" portrait of Obama but not of the whole family and/or Michelle and/or the girls).
obamanut2012
(26,069 posts)Like, we couldn't have anything on our cars if they were cars we parked on State property.
If KC isn't fired, then no one literally can be.
BumRushDaShow
(128,918 posts)as it is considered "electioneering".
I know from the time I had started, the rules were modified slightly because in some cases, agencies were extreme with it and there were quite a bit of gray areas. Some of the revisions actually created "levels" that dealt with the hierarchy of employees (e.g., appointees vs civil servants and some even referenced those who might act as judges, etc). Of course this never stopped the coworker "debates" and "discussion" (I guess you could call it the cliched "watercooler/coffee pot talk" ) about whatever administration was in office at the time. But I think the gist was about avoiding the appearance of partisanship when it came to dealing with the public, whose taxes funded our salaries. As members of the Executive Branch, we were to uphold the directives that the Legislative Branch passed and the President signed into law (or allowed to become law).
obamanut2012
(26,069 posts)MBS
(9,688 posts)I'm so sick of this lawless, dishonest, immoral, amoral, corrupt regime.
The very presence of this mob in the White House and executive branch debases not only the presidency, and our international reputation, but also corrupts the honorable and essential tradition of dedicated, nonpartisan civil service upon which a functioning, efficient, fair-minded government depends.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,918 posts)Their website is either half-broken or getting hammered but see this -
After investigating an alleged Hatch Act violation, OSC may seek disciplinary action against an employee before the Merit Systems Protection Board. When violations are not sufficiently egregious to warrant prosecution, OSC may issue a warning letter to the employee involved.
https://osc.gov/Pages/HatchAct-HowToFile.aspx
I think usually what happens is that if a complaint is filed and the OSC does an investigation and provides their recommendation, they probably will defer to a Department/agency to mete out any punishment/disciplanary actions (e.g., there is usually a successive series of steps including informal warnings, formal (written warnings), before going with something like a suspension or firing). I expect that if the Department/Agency does nothing, OSC can act to do this themselves. However in the above excerpt, appointees are not covered by the Merit Systems Protection Board for adjudication -
No. The employees and others (e.g., applicants for employment, annuitants in retirement cases) who may appeal specific actions to the Board vary in accordance with the law and regulations governing those actions. In some cases, classes of employees, such as political appointees, are excluded. Employees of specific agencies are excluded with respect to certain actions.
https://www.mspb.gov/appeals/appellantqanda.htm
(bolding mine)
Meaning there is apparently a loophole here for appointees which I think is why this is going to happen (found quoted at dKos) -
Link to tweet
TEXT
Lisa Hagen @LA_Hagen
New: Cummings announces that the House Oversight Committee will hold a hearing on June 26 w/ the Office of Special Counsel about its recommendation for WH counselor Kellyanne Conway to be removed re: Hatch Act violations. He is also inviting Conway.https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-06-13/federal-watchdog-recommends-kellyanne-conways-removal-for-hatch-act-violations
3:00 PM - Jun 13, 2019
Here is the official announcement from the House Oversight Committee (chaired by Elijah Cummings) -
Link to tweet
TEXT
Oversight Committee
✔
@OversightDems
Hearing Alert: Chairman @RepCummings announces hearing with the Office of Special Counsel after it recommended that #PresidentTrump remove #KellyanneConway from the White House.
Read the full release here: https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/cummings-issues-statement-after-osc-recommends-that-president-trump-remove
6:12 PM - Jun 13, 2019
This means that they will probably attempt to amend the law (last amendments occurred in 1993 - which I remember) to deal with this sort of situation which has never happened to this degree before (most are shamed into publicly promising never to do it again and they didn't... or they offer to resign or the President metes out some sort of discipline - there were some cases regarding Sebelius and Castro under Obama which never rose to the level of Conway's intransigence).
This country at one time had Presidents who respected the "system" but no more.
thenelm1
(854 posts)I mean if that's to be the standard, fair is fair, right?
Lulu KC
(2,565 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,918 posts)It's literally knee-jerk dismissive "decision-making to get out of the jam-of-the-moment", with absolutely no consideration as to the long-term effects or consequences.
It's like me standing with a torch in an area of a room with flammable materials that is roped off and separated from the rest of the room, and rather than try to extinguish the torch, I throw it over to another part of the room that has stacks of paper files.
Bayard
(22,063 posts)I wanted to just slap that smirk off her face yesterday.
Even if someone explained this law to tRump, he'd say they don't know what they're talking about--like Chris Wray doesn't know what he's talking about when he says a campaign accepting foreign assistance is a federal crime.
MBS
(9,688 posts)How her marriage to George Conway is going these days
moonseller66
(430 posts)but Nancy needs more definitive proof?
Wait for the body... maybe then...but I doubt it.
moonseller66
(430 posts)OK for anyone in the WH, anyone in ICE, any Neo Nazis...
but...
no to the press, no to any protestors, no to anyone who disagrees with any of his views.
IF now now, Nancy, When? And why not now? We're waiting for a legit answer.
P.S. We really don't have a lot of time. Neither do the immigrants in Trump/ICE/DHS Concentration Camps.
skamaria
(329 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)She could go on air tomorrow and hock Ivanka's clothes or Trump properties even, with a glint in her eyes. Nothing anyone can do about it.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)Trump don't need no stinkin' ethics.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)She has a flagrant disregard for the law. And give her a fair hearing so the evidence of her corruption gets aired.
Turbineguy
(37,324 posts)Ypou just put in your resume how many times and what laws you broke and you're in!