Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stonepounder

(4,033 posts)
Thu Nov 23, 2017, 01:02 AM Nov 2017

Yet another clueless move by 'the gang that doesn't care about shooting straight'.

Kellyanne 'alternate reality bozo' Conway spouted off on Faux News on Monday:

"Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don't be fooled. He will be a vote against tax cuts. He is weak on crime. Weak on borders. He is strong on raising your taxes. He is terrible for property owners.

I'm telling you that we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through. And the media -- if the media were really concerned about all of these allegations, and if that's what this is truly about, and the Democrats -- Al Franken would be on the ash heap of bygone half funny comedians"


Enter the Hatch Act:

The 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It forbids officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support.


(Emphasis mine)

The penalty, as specified in the act is:

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be immediately removed from the position or office held by him, and thereafter no part of the funds appropriated by any Act of Congress for such position or office shall be used to pay the compensation of such person.


What happens when there is a blatant violation of the Hatch Act - Kellyanne clearly violated the Act - and the President ignores the fact and keeps her on and keeps paying her? Trump has already stated that the Ethics laws don't apply to the White House, how about other laws? What happens when Trump & Co blatantly refuse to obey laws they don't agree with and Congress does nothing?

When do we accept that the United States, as we have known it all our lives no longer exists?

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Yet another clueless move by 'the gang that doesn't care about shooting straight'. (Original Post) Stonepounder Nov 2017 OP
civil servants vs political appointees rocketdem1964 Nov 2017 #1
My understanding is that she's an employee of the executive office unblock Nov 2017 #3
Apparently there is some ambiguous wiggle room Brother Buzz Nov 2017 #8
I think Conway is going to be toast soon. Richard Painter was just on citing that this is twice... brush Nov 2017 #2
Trump is required to see that the laws would be followed. Sophia4 Nov 2017 #4
Yeah, like he isn't supposed to mess with the DOJ. Stonepounder Nov 2017 #5
He is weak on crime ???? Huh? Puzzler Nov 2017 #6
poor Kellyanne Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #7

rocketdem1964

(25 posts)
1. civil servants vs political appointees
Thu Nov 23, 2017, 01:54 AM
Nov 2017

Just FYI. Note that there is a recognized difference within the Hatch Act between civil servants and political appointees. I don't know the exact status of Kellyanne's job, but I would not be surprised if it was not a standard GS-scale position (like, for example, mine).

unblock

(51,982 posts)
3. My understanding is that she's an employee of the executive office
Thu Nov 23, 2017, 02:17 AM
Nov 2017

And thus not exempt from the hatch act.

Clearly they use her as a political appointee.

Brother Buzz

(36,226 posts)
8. Apparently there is some ambiguous wiggle room
Thu Nov 23, 2017, 04:11 AM
Nov 2017
Less Restricted Employees

Following the relaxation of limitations on participation in political activity, the majority of
individuals identified as 'employees' subject to the Hatch Act are considered 'less restricted
employees.' That is, these employees are subject to the standard rules provided by the Hatch
Act, whether by statute or regulation, and generally are permitted to 'take an active part in
political management or in political campaigns,' except for the general restrictions outlined
above.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44469.pdf

brush

(53,480 posts)
2. I think Conway is going to be toast soon. Richard Painter was just on citing that this is twice...
Thu Nov 23, 2017, 01:58 AM
Nov 2017

she has broken the law. The first being when she in her official capacity as a White House spokesperson plugged Ivanka's clothing line on national TV, and now this violation of the Hatch Act by publicly campaigning for child molester Moore in her official capacity.

When Painter came out hard against Bannon and Gorka and their white supremacy/nazi/alt-right bs, they were soon gone. I think screws in the actual, old school Republican establishment were turned to get them out and the same thing is going to happen to Conway.

 

Sophia4

(3,515 posts)
4. Trump is required to see that the laws would be followed.
Thu Nov 23, 2017, 02:22 AM
Nov 2017

Before he enter(s) on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

Constitution, Article II, section 3

"he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, . . . ."

If it is the law, Trump is supposed to "take care" that it is followed.

Stonepounder

(4,033 posts)
5. Yeah, like he isn't supposed to mess with the DOJ.
Thu Nov 23, 2017, 02:48 AM
Nov 2017

He's already said that those kind of laws don't apply to the White House and its staff.

Puzzler

(2,505 posts)
6. He is weak on crime ???? Huh?
Thu Nov 23, 2017, 03:41 AM
Nov 2017

So, support the Republican pedophile?

I dunno, but it seems hopeless to even try and debate talking points such as this.

So let’s try and have a “reasoned” mainstream media debate on the issue. Maybe we can find some “middle ground”???????

I think not. Not now. Not never.

But we will




-Puzzler




Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Yet another clueless move...