Unfortunately, but completely unsurprisingly, I think @TobiasFunke once again overestimated the Trump administration.Trump, "No. I was briefed on the situation yesterday. I think they are trying to take away her free speech."
Live on Fox and Friends now.
I do think it's still possible they move her to the campaign side, but yeah. You'd think I would have learned my lesson by now.Unfortunately, but completely unsurprisingly, I think @TobiasFunke once again overestimated the Trump administration.
No way they apply to Trump then.Laws only apply to the little people
6'3" 239 pal. Not an inch under, not a pound over.No way they apply to Trump then.
Allegedly she violated the Hatch Act two times.Wait what did she do? I haven’t been able to keep up with anything this week.
Thanks.Allegedly she violated the Hatch Act two times.
Well they are known for their zealously guarding the spirit and intent of all electioneering laws.Thanks.
I’m sure the GOP and the current administration will issue swift discipline.
Only two?Allegedly she violated the Hatch Act two times.
I believe those are the current allegations in the news. I am not in possession of a running total.Only two?
It was way more than 2- probably dozens- and you can remove the "allegedly." There's no criminal proceeding, the Office of the Special Counsel is the final arbiter for a White House employee I believe (usually it's the Merit Systems Protection Board but I think it's different for White House personnel).Allegedly she violated the Hatch Act two times.
He has an op ed calling for Trump's impeachment right now.With all of the tweeting that George Conway does, he certainly has avoided this topic.
Love their website. I used it recently to do a bit of research on the Hatch Act for my employer.It was way more than 2- probably dozens- and you can remove the "allegedly." There's no criminal proceeding, the Office of the Special Counsel is the final arbiter for a White House employee I believe (usually it's the Merit Systems Protection Board but I think it's different for White House personnel).
I was of the opinion that OSC opened two case investigations against her. I guess each could contain multiple allegations. I am not familiar (directly)with the findings, as of yet, but will read your link.It was way more than 2- probably dozens- and you can remove the "allegedly." There's no criminal proceeding, the Office of the Special Counsel is the final arbiter for a White House employee I believe (usually it's the Merit Systems Protection Board but I think it's different for White House personnel).
That's great but for anyone who doesn't have your dedication to reading legal memos: the OSC (independent, headed by a Trump appointee) concluded that Conway's violations are "egregious, notorious and ongoing," that she "has clear knowledge of the Hatch Act and yet continues to disregard the law" and that her conduct warrants her removal. Conclusion in part:I was of the opinion that OSC opened two case investigations against her. I guess each could contain multiple allegations. I am not familiar (directly)with the findings, as of yet, but will read your link.
Ms. Conway’s persistent, notorious, and deliberate Hatch Act violations have created an unprecedented challenge to this office’s ability to enforce the Act, as we are statutorily charged. She has willfully and openly disregarded the law in full public view. As recently as May 29, 2019, Ms. Conway defiantly rejected the Hatch Act’s application to her activities, dismissed OSC’s 2018 findings, and flippantly stated, “Let me know when the jail sentence starts.”50 And she made it clear that she has no plans to cease abusing her official position to influence voters. Ms. Conway’s conduct undermines public confidence in the Executive branch and compromises the civil service system that the Hatch Act was intended to protect. Her knowing and blatant disregard for the law aggravates the severity of her numerous violations.
I appreciate the summary. I was just now finishing reading over the report. I would state that I believe your summary is representative of the tenor of the report I just read. OSC seems discommoded, and rightfully so.That's great but for anyone who doesn't have your dedication to reading legal memos: the OSC (independent, headed by a Trump appointee) concluded that Conway's violations are "egregious, notorious and ongoing," that she "has clear knowledge of the Hatch Act and yet continues to disregard the law" and that her conduct warrants her removal. Conclusion in part:
Gotta love our "law and order president"Trump, "No. I was briefed on the situation yesterday. I think they are trying to take away her free speech."
Live on Fox and Friends now.
Our whole checks and balances charade has blown apart with how toothless it really is.Ditkaless Wonders said:I am fascinated at how toothless the OSC has been. This is not her first investigation for violation and finding of violation.
He also thinks of himself as honest.Godsbrother said:Gotta love our "law and order president"
He is less embarrassing than she is...or Trump.I would’ve fired her for her embarrassment of a husband
Sad but true.Our whole checks and balances charade has blown apart with how toothless it really is.
Yeah, she needs one of those plexiglass cells like Hannibal LecterDitkaless Wonders said:Would take very narrowly spaced bars.
Skinny? No, I just mean she probably eats human flesh.Careful...some might get mad at people for skinny shaming.
But with sufficient portion control as to maintain that svelte, concentration camp figure of hers.Skinny? No, I just mean she probably eats human flesh.
Look who she hangs out with. Bannon. Trump. Sanders.But with sufficient portion control as to maintain that svelte, concentration camp figure of hers.
I will be watching for her diet book. I'm guessing it will not make Oprah's book club but it should be on the Times best seller list in no time.Look who she hangs out with. Bannon. Trump. Sanders.
She only eats skinny people. Nice, lean protein.
It think you're overlooking a pretty obvious difference.....Just saw this on Twitter, not sure why it didn't occur to me before: Trump's defense of Conway (that she's exercising her First Amendment rights to make political speech at work) is exactly what he criticized football players for doing.
Obviously they're not exactly the same- silent protest is not nearly as political as lying about and insulting candidates for office, there's no rule (let alone a law) that tells the players they can't offer political speech at work, etc. But the contrast is pretty incredible.
I assume you're referring to the fact that Conway is a woman and the football players are men. Trump has always been deferential and respectful when it comes to women who speak their mind.It think you're overlooking a pretty obvious difference.....
That's probably it. As such, I'm sure Trump and his followers have taken no issue with Megan Rapinoe exercising her 1A rights while working as well.I assume you're referring to the fact that Conway is a woman and the football players are men. Trump has always been deferential and respectful when it comes to women who speak their mind.
Yeah, except that there’s no law against what the NFL players were doing. Oh, and there’s one other difference I was going to mention. Can’t seem to remember. Hmm.Just saw this on Twitter, not sure why it didn't occur to me before: Trump's defense of Conway (that she's exercising her First Amendment rights to make political speech at work) is exactly what he criticized football players for doing.
Obviously they're not exactly the same- silent protest is not nearly as political as lying about and insulting candidates for office, there's no rule (let alone a law) that tells the players they can't offer political speech at work, etc. But the contrast is pretty incredible.
Getting standing ovations everywhere he goes?Where is that guy when you need him?