Office of Special Counsel: Conway violated Hatch Act

[Kreton]

Meh, it was a bad joke. I'm not a criminal myself, but I do think that criminals should be held accountable for breaking laws. Some of the posters in this thread apparently disagree (but only when it applies to Democrats).

I was like 99.99999% sure but then I turned on the news and well, people are ****ing crazy.

 

[Kreton]

Did FBI's McCabe get punished under Obama's administration?!?

"For instance, in an August 19, 2015, e-mail from his FBI e-mail account to an undisclosed recipient, he wrote: 'Jill has been busy as hell since she decided to run for VA state senate (long story). Check her out on Facebook as Dr. Jill McCabe for Senate.'"

Do you believe that if Obama did it then it makes it right? Obama did a lot of things people with your political lean tended to dislike. Are you now of the belief that Obama was an amazing president who did no wrong? Or do you happen to believe that just because Obama did something that it is still not the right thing to do?

 

[j-mac]

Clearly sarcasm is present there.

Me? Sarcastic? I wouldn't never....lol just kidding....

how many out of 5 are you serious about?

At least 3 of them...Obviously sending her to Gitmo wouldn't be fruitful....Unless they waterboarded her....Then we could get her to say anything we want....lol

What should happen if a person in a government position is found to have violated the Hatch act?

That's up to the President, or at least Kelly....I don't have a problem with the minimum stated....She could probably use a vacation....

Personally I think this should apply. Something in that range. At the very least the minimum.

That's up to them....

Government officials should be held accountable all the time not just when they are of the other party.

I agree, but I would say with all the laws on the books, it's getting more likely that an opposition party can all but cripple any administration they don't like with this minutia.

 

[j-mac]

Ooh, you managed to mention both Obama and Clinton in a single post in a thread about Conway. Do you get extra credit for that?

Yes, yes he does....And do you know what he wins?

 

[Kreton]

That's up to the President, or at least Kelly....I don't have a problem with the minimum stated....She could probably use a vacation....



That's up to them....

Those aren't my guidelines, best I can tell, that is the letter of the law. 30 days minimum suspension.

I agree, but I would say with all the laws on the books, it's getting more likely that an opposition party can all but cripple any administration they don't like with this minutia.

I disagree. It is not unreasonable to expect politicians to abide by the actual law. In America we have this incredible double standard that the vast majority of people on hold people accountable if they affiliate themselves with the other party. In my lifetime it has literally happened to every president I have been old enough to pay attention to but never has it been more warranted than our current administration.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Yes, yes he does....And do you know what he wins?

Well, damn. I should give it a try.

 

[dcsports]

He did. We all did.

You first post was about "all presidents" doing this (Kellyanne Conway isn't President) and CNN's lousy reporting because they didn't take the time to educate you on the Hatch Act (maybe assuming you would do it yourself).

You derailed the thread. Next time talk about the topic. It wasn't all presidents, and it wasn't CNN.

Sigh... bless your heart.

Yes, I mentioned presidents. I didn't realize the act didn't apply to presidents and VPs, like Cardinal and many others here. Why? Because the article mentioned in the OP had poor reporting, and didn't explain the act being violated. Note that you haven't challenged that at all.

Now, obviously, you are the type that has to have the last word, so please proceed.

 

[dcsports]

Those aren't my guidelines, best I can tell, that is the letter of the law. 30 days minimum suspension.

Apparently, the penalties were changed under the Obama administration (in 2012). The punishment can be a simple reprimand.

https://osc.gov/pages/hatchact-affectsme.aspx

Penalties On December 19, 2012, Congress passed the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012 (the Act). The Act modifies the penalty structure for violations of the Hatch Act by federal employees. The changes became effective on January 27, 2013. Under the modified penalty structure, an employee who violates the Hatch Act is subject to a range of disciplinary actions. This includes removal from federal service, reduction in grade, debarment from federal employment for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, reprimand, or a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000. (Before enactment of these amendments, an employee was subject to removal, or in some cases, a suspension of no less than 30 days for Hatch Act violations). The modified penalty structure applies to violations that occurred before, on, or after January 27, 2013, unless OSC has already initiated a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board as of that date, or an employee has already entered into a settlement agreement with OSC.

 

[Anthony60]

I agree he should have been penalized. Admitting to it goes a ways to indicating that the act was unintentional. What I'm looking for, at the barre minimum, is for Conway to admit to violating the Hatch Act. At that point you would have a clear equivalency.

I think it's stupid and serves no useful purpose.

 

[Cardinal]

I think it's stupid and serves no useful purpose.

It's stupid and serves no purpose for someone to admit they committed a crime? A year ago a trump supporter still would have been able to surprise me with that kind of position, but no longer.

 

[Anthony60]

Is there any chance of you discussing the topic (Kellyanne Conway and her violation of the Hatch Act) without mentioning the last President?

Mate didn't join here until October of 2017. Obama wasn't President then. How do you know what he gave a crap about when he wasn't a member at the time of "Obama's guy"?

Sorry, but I'm not working on a curve here. Why do you need a special exemption for Obama, as he is deeply involved in the government actions during the campaign and the lead up to Trump taking office, and beyond?

I think it's pretty obvious that what he gave a crap about. I'm sure he had no problem with anything Obama did, no matter how damaging to our country, but now cries about the same things, if it happens under Trump.

 

[Anthony60]

It's a crime. That's what it's called when you break a law. You didn't even know there was a Hatch Act violation during Obama's administration before today, did you? What was the name of "Obama's guy". I'll give you a hint. It was the female HHS secretary. When did it happen? Here's another hint. Waaaay before I joined DP, so you claiming to know anything about what I gave "a crap" about is very silly for you to post. Typical but foolish.

Oh, really? You have to be on DP to give a crap about it? I never said you were. Oh, I'm sure you were outraged and were calling for arrests to be made, where ever you were.

So being yourself entirely ignorant about this situation, you found the need to run into the thread, never understand what the Hatch Act is, never research its potential penalties, defend the president's counselor (whose name you can't spell) without knowing anything about the topic, and say, "But Obama." Are you sure "your side" wants you speaking for it?

Talk about ignorant. I posted about Julian Castro, HUD Secretary, who, as far as I know, is a man, unless he's transgendering. At least I can tell a girl from a boy.

 

[Anthony60]

Good call bringing Hillary up. The go to conservative response when they can't put up a real arguement. but but but but but hillary :boohoo:

I can understand why you would like to exempt certain things, like Hillary's conduct, from a debate board. I mean, you would look foolish because you are unable to defend your position. Good for you! Make up rules!

 

[Kreton]

I can understand why you would like to exempt certain things, like Hillary's conduct, from a debate board. I mean, you would look foolish because you are unable to defend your position. Good for you! Make up rules!

You are crying about Hillary in an attempt to avoid discussing the topic of the thread....and I am making up the rules?

Maybe you don't realize the topic. Let's refresh. Office of Special Counsel: Conway violated Hatch Act. Discuss.

 

[Oborosen]

WTF. My god. It's one after the other. No one is clean in this WH swampy



https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/politics/kellyanne-conway-hatch-act/index.html

This is the Clinton/Corruption News Network.... ****ing Christ......

These kids and all the straw grasping in the last year is really starting to irk those of us. Who actually watch the news to see insightful journalism.

Guess that means this **** show of a network is out of that running. They haven't displayed any journalistic integrity for over a year now.

 

[tres borrachos]

Sorry, but I'm not working on a curve here. Why do you need a special exemption for Obama, as he is deeply involved in the government actions during the campaign and the lead up to Trump taking office, and beyond?

I think it's pretty obvious that what he gave a crap about. I'm sure he had no problem with anything Obama did, no matter how damaging to our country, but now cries about the same things, if it happens under Trump.

Why do you talk about Obama in a thread about Kellyanne Conway? Start a thread about him if you want.

 

[tres borrachos]

Sigh... bless your heart.

Yes, I mentioned presidents. I didn't realize the act didn't apply to presidents and VPs, like Cardinal and many others here. Why? Because the article mentioned in the OP had poor reporting, and didn't explain the act being violated. Note that you haven't challenged that at all.

Now, obviously, you are the type that has to have the last word, so please proceed.

So again, you're upset because you don't know what The Hatch Act is, and you wanted CNN to educate you about it. Got it.

Next time do research on a topic and then you won't look silly in a thread complaining that the MSM isn't leading you by the nose.

 

[dcsports]

So again, you're upset because you don't know what The Hatch Act is, and you wanted CNN to educate you about it. Got it.

Next time do research on a topic and then you won't look silly in a thread complaining that the MSM isn't leading you by the nose.

lol -- and I swore I wouldn't respond to your baiting again. Good job there!

Yes, I would expect a news article to explain the story they are reporting on. When the issue is a law / regulation, they should explain the basics of that act, especially when its one that many people won't be familiar with. It's not 'leading by the nose', but good reporting. It shouldn't be necessary for someone to do research to have a basic understanding of a news story presented -- that's what reporting is for.

It's also worth noting that CNN apparently agreed, because they bulked up the story with more information, links, and a secondary article explaining the Hatch act.

Not sure where all this venom is coming from, but please, have a nice day.

 

[tres borrachos]

lol -- and I swore I wouldn't respond to your baiting again. Good job there!

Yes, I would expect a news article to explain the story they are reporting on. When the issue is a law / regulation, they should explain the basics of that act, especially when its one that many people won't be familiar with. It's not 'leading by the nose', but good reporting. It shouldn't be necessary for someone to do research to have a basic understanding of a news story presented -- that's what reporting is for.

It's also worth noting that CNN apparently agreed, because they bulked up the story with more information, links, and a secondary article explaining the Hatch act.

Not sure where all this venom is coming from, but please, have a nice day.

You have a nice day too. I hope CNN doesn't ruin your day anymore.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Lock her up!

 

[Anthony60]

You are crying about Hillary in an attempt to avoid discussing the topic of the thread....and I am making up the rules?

Maybe you don't realize the topic. Let's refresh. Office of Special Counsel: Conway violated Hatch Act. Discuss.

No, you mean "Discuss... but don't bring up stuff that weakens my argument." That's what you really mean.

 

[Anthony60]

Why do you talk about Obama in a thread about Kellyanne Conway? Start a thread about him if you want.

Why? Do I really need to spoon feed you on this? The Hatch Act was also violated under Obama. No action taken. Are you catching on yet as to why that might be discussed?

 

[tres borrachos]

Why? Do I really need to spoon feed you on this? The Hatch Act was also violated under Obama. No action taken. Are you catching on yet as to why that might be discussed?

So start a thread about the person who violated the Hatch Act under Obama. This thread is about Kellyanne Conway. Nobody cares about the person under Obama. Nobody cares about Obama - except you.

 

[markjs]

I can understand why you would like to exempt certain things, like Hillary's conduct, from a debate board. I mean, you would look foolish because you are unable to defend your position. Good for you! Make up rules!

Covfefe addiction is no joke!

 

[Kreton]

No, you mean "Discuss... but don't bring up stuff that weakens my argument." That's what you really mean.

Hillary Clinton has no impact what so ever on Kellyanne Conway violating the hatch act. It is a completely different subject that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You are trying to discuss a completely different topic to avoid answering the actual topic of the thread.