Kellyanne violated the Hatch Act

[Medic007]

OSC busted her for violations of the Hatch Act and recommended that she be fired.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...violated-hatch-act-and-recommends-her-removal

Of course, Team Obama has to chime in with what Saint Obama would have done if someone violated the Hatch Act under his watch since "Obama would not have tolerated anyone who had violated the Hatch Act."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...en-me-fired-fmr-obama-adviser-valerie-jarrett

Of course you have to keep in mind that if anyone from Team Obama is talking, they're always lying.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/recordings-reveal-former-labor-secretary-violated-hatch-act/

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/julian-castro-ethics-hud-hatch-225732

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/osc-report-sebelius-violated-hatch-act-081122

 

[tlwwake]

Of course team Obama weighed in. They had an administration without scandals.. very proud of that.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I have read many pro-Trump people on this board insist that if Trump or any of his subordinates have violated the law you are all for throwing the book at them. I don’t know if Kellyanne violated the Hatch Act or not. But if she did do you not think she should have the book thrown at her? It should be immaterial what occurred in the Obama administration, should it not? Bringing up Obama is an attempt to deflect attention away from the original post. I’ve always liked her, and thought she was a very effective advisor to Trump. She, probably more than any other member of his staff helped put him over the top in beating Hillary. And for that we should always be grateful. But if she really has violated the Hatch Act as Trump’s subordinate she needs to be let go. Agree? Disagree?

 

[purkey]

what she said is about 1/10 as bad as what all those suckers say about trump....it's a lot of nothing and will go nowhere....

“The Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) unprecedented actions against Kellyanne Conway are deeply flawed and violate her constitutional rights to free speech and due process,” deputy press secretary Steven Groves said in a statement. “... Its decisions seem to be influenced by media pressure and liberal organizations – and perhaps OSC should be mindful of its own mandate to act in a fair, impartial, non-political manner, and not misinterpret or weaponize the Hatch Act.”

 

[aix_xpert]

I have read many pro-Trump people on this board insist that if Trump or any of his subordinates have violated the law you are all for throwing the book at them. I don’t know if Kellyanne violated the Hatch Act or not. But if she did do you not think she should have the book thrown at her? It should be immaterial what occurred in the Obama administration, should it not? Bringing up Obama is an attempt to deflect attention away from the original post. I’ve always liked her, and thought she was a very effective advisor to Trump. She, probably more than any other member of his staff helped put him over the top in beating Hillary. And for that we should always be grateful. But if she really has violated the Hatch Act as Trump’s subordinate she needs to be let go. Agree? Disagree?

I disagree in this particular instance as the Hatch act is an outdated and unenforceable statute. I consider it much like our laws on infidelity. It may be illegal, but its never prosecuted and the rule hasn't been updated to account for 80+ years of societal change.

If you want a separate debate about picking and choosing which laws we should follow and which we shouldn't, I'd point you to our current immigration policies, our current mj policies, and numerous other 'vice' laws such as infidelity or sodomy that are blantantly ignored in every day life.

As for the position that Obama did it and no one cared, that does matter. It set the precedent that the Hatch Act was outdated and no longer standard Washington policy. The fact that the violations were known (as shown in the prior stories) yet ignored by the media, watchdog orgs, and the White House, verifies that position.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I disagree in this particular instance as the Hatch act is an outdated and unenforceable statute. I consider it much like our laws on infidelity. It may be illegal, but its never prosecuted and the rule hasn't been updated to account for 80+ years of societal change.

If you want a separate debate about picking and choosing which laws we should follow and which we shouldn't, I'd point you to our current immigration policies, our current mj policies, and numerous other 'vice' laws such as infidelity or sodomy that are blantantly ignored in every day life.

As for the position that Obama did it and no one cared, that does matter. It set the precedent that the Hatch Act was outdated and no longer standard Washington policy. The fact that the violations were known (as shown in the prior stories) yet ignored by the media, watchdog orgs, and the White House, verifies that position.

You make excellent points, and I can't argue against a thing you wrote. Great response, very reasonable. Good job!

 

[Medic007]

Bringing up Obama is an attempt to deflect attention away from the original post.

No Dan, it wasn't. I posted that because of the usual predictable "scandal free" "Obama wouldn't tolerate that" nonsense we're fed by Team Obama and his sycophants. It was simply a preemptive reply to the Obama boys here. If you can find where I attempted to justify anything with "but Obama" please quote it for me. I'm pretty sure I haven't stated an opinion on Kellyanne yet.

Initial reaction is that the recommendations of the OSC should be followed. I'm not familiar enough with the Hatch Act to comment more right now.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

More selective, politically fired enforcement.

Y'all have done that one to death.
Get a hobby.

 

[JimmyBob]

I'm not familiar enough with the Hatch

Great f*cking chili peppers!

 

[Soonersincefitty]

Great f*cking chili peppers!

The best, IMO.

 

[wyomingosualum]

OSC busted her for violations of the Hatch Act and recommended that she be fired.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...violated-hatch-act-and-recommends-her-removal

Of course, Team Obama has to chime in with what Saint Obama would have done if someone violated the Hatch Act under his watch since "Obama would not have tolerated anyone who had violated the Hatch Act."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...en-me-fired-fmr-obama-adviser-valerie-jarrett

Of course you have to keep in mind that if anyone from Team Obama is talking, they're always lying.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/recordings-reveal-former-labor-secretary-violated-hatch-act/

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/julian-castro-ethics-hud-hatch-225732

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/osc-report-sebelius-violated-hatch-act-081122

So are presidents exempt from the Hatch Act? Haven’t had time to look up the statute and read it for myself.

(Long story, flat tire, fixed now, gotta get back to work while it’s still daylight. I’m just curious if that law applies to everybody and if not, why not.)

 

[OKSTATE1]

My question is this then, before you run for a higher office do you have to quit your current federal job to do so?

If a congressman decides to run for Prez does he then need to immediately step down in order to not violate the act?

 

[JimmyBob]

The best, IMO.

Amen, and poblano is second - have an awesome recipe for these stuffed.

We now return this thread to whateverTF it was about........

 

[windriverrange]

So are presidents exempt from the Hatch Act? Haven’t had time to look up the statute and read it for myself.

(Long story, flat tire, fixed now, gotta get back to work while it’s still daylight. I’m just curious if that law applies to everybody and if not, why not.)

I believe the president and VP are not held to the act. Generally anyone else in the executive department are held to the act, there are some exemptions outside of the pres & VP.

 

[imprimis]

Kellyanne goes when Kerry gets prosecuted for Logan Act violations.

 

[wyomingosualum]

I believe the president and VP are not held to the act. Generally anyone else in the executive department are held to the act, there are some exemptions outside of the pres & VP.

OK. So no equal application of the law. Sounds constitutional.

(Not killing the messenger here, just sayin’!)

 

[hollywood]

[QUOTE

“The Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) unprecedented actions against Kellyanne Conway are deeply flawed and violate her constitutional rights to free speech and due process,” deputy press secretary Steven Groves said in a statement. “...[/QUOTE]

1. It's hardly unprecedented.

2. She was warned repeatedly and engaged in repeated behavior that was violative of the Hatch Act.

3. First Amendment (Free Speech) does not apply, as per two Scotus Rulings: United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973); and United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).

4. Comparing Sebellius and Castro, where each person violated the Hatch Act once and were disciplined as a result, to the serial offender that is Kellyanne Conway is incredibly disingenuous and is by definition a false analogy.

5. However, as the President (and AG) has decided that this is not worthy of a criminal referral, she's in the clear (for now.)

 

[knoblock]

[QUOTE

“The Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) unprecedented actions against Kellyanne Conway are deeply flawed and violate her constitutional rights to free speech and due process,” deputy press secretary Steven Groves said in a statement. “...

1. It's hardly unprecedented.

2. She was warned repeatedly and engaged in repeated behavior that was violative of the Hatch Act.

3. First Amendment (Free Speech) does not apply, as per two Scotus Rulings: United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973); and United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).

4. Comparing Sebellius and Castro, where each person violated the Hatch Act once and were disciplined as a result, to the serial offender that is Kellyanne Conway is incredibly disingenuous and is by definition a false analogy.

5. However, as the President (and AG) has decided that this is not worthy of a criminal referral, she's in the clear (for now.)[/QUOTE]
@hollywood. How are you doing?

 

[Medic007]

Comparing Sebellius and Castro, where each person violated the Hatch Act once and were disciplined as a result

Actually, neither Sebelius nor Castro were "disciplined." Hilda Solis wasn't either but she ended up resigning.

 

[OUSOONER67]

Whats the big deal? I violate the Hatch Act everytime I cook some eggs.

 

[Pokeabear]

It’s not a prosecution thing. It’s an ethics thing and for the first time ever, the OSC recommendation was for termination. Trump own appointed brought this case forward. Y’all are bananas.

 

[iasooner1]

Ricardo's: Southland Tulsa serving the best rellenos in Merica for the last 40 years or more.

 

[Medic007]

It’s not a prosecution thing. It’s an ethics thing and for the first time ever, the OSC recommendation was for termination. Trump own appointed brought this case forward. Y’all are bananas.

At least she wasn't fundraising like Hilda Solis.

 

[AC_Exotic]

The AG recommended she be terminated. He's about as much of a straight shooter is you find.

Not a good look for Trump.

 

[iasooner1]

Guilty until proven innocent; established 2016