Why did your side defend Al Gore? No, seriously - why?
At this point I think we can assume that you have no intention of answering a direct question that pertains to the subject of this thread.
Fundraising from the White House is far worse and Trump’s use of the office to spread conspiracy theories around the caravan went beyond unethical to toxic waste and is among one of the more clearly impeachable offenses that he has committed.
That said, all crimes are crimes and Conway committed one. She should be removed from her position. It’s the Oath of the President to uphold the law, and that’s what he has to do. If he doesn’t, it’s another impeachable offense.
Her contributions to debates are limited to drive-by comments, facile questions, and pointing fingers. Strangely, the question you are replying to is probably her most substantive question ever posted, and yet it’s just a pure straw man.
I’m in favor of enforcing the Hatch Act, as are most other people, but as long as she can find one person on “our side” who disagrees, they speak for us. Meanwhile, of course, it would be totally offensive to her if anyone implied that Trump’s neonazi brigade has anything to do with her positions. Which, of course, they do not.
What we see here is a rhetorical vermin trap: when rats can be found in society, the can be presumed only to be going in one direction, away from the speaker; in this case, D’Anconia.
By the way, on the larger topic, I once had a lobbyist offer to do some low-grade favor for me. I don’t remember exactly what it was, I think it was an offer of some baseball tickets or something like that, but I’m excess of gift limits.
I said no, I can’t accept that offer. This person literally used the phrase “no controlling legal authority” in trying to cajole me to take him up on the offer. I decided at that point to minimize any future contact with that person.
Around a year or two later, the firm he worked for was raided by the FBI and some people (not this guy in particular) went to prison for much bigger violations of law. I cheered as justice was served to what was clearly a corrupt organization.
What I took from that is that if an organization can’t uphold ethics on small things, they can’t hold the line against big things. That’s why Kellyanne and this whole Administration needs to go. (Well, reason 492, anyway.)
Some folks here are looking at the Hatch Act through the wrong end of the telescope. It isn’t about “taking away” the rights of some public employees. It’s about people voluntarily surrendering those rights for the privilege of serving is those positions. You know the rules going in and by going in you agree to follow them.
This thread could easily spawn interesting discussion. Things like, is the Hatch Act good law? Should it be repealed? Does it violate the 1st amendment? Is what Conway did in violation of it? Should certain executive office personnel be exempt from it? Will there be consequences if it can be demonstrated that it was violated? Is there a history of violating it over some number of years or past administrations? All of those could be interesting discussion topics. Instead of that, you’ve chosen to engage in this type of JAQing off.
It’s expected a certain amount of partisanship in the Elections forum, so I’m typically more open to the petty needling that partisanship engenders. I also don’t think it’s trolling per se, since I don’t see this as posting solely to get a rise out of people. But this post as well as your others here is beyond simple partisan sniping and is an anchor on this thread.
As such, I’m directing you to no longer post in this thread. Others will not address or respond to your comments in this thread.
[/moderating]
Yeah. I mean, you’d really think an honest-to-god lawyer wouldn’t make this mistake. It boggles the mind how one could be a lawyer, speak from one’s authority as a lawyer, and get something so simple so wrong. I can’t really think of a reason why.
Actually, I can. This is what happens when partisanship is strong and one party is, not to mince words, fucking evil. You get this. People making flimsy excuses for breaking the law, because the alternative is admitting, “my side is wrong in a very meaningful way and we may face consequences for doing so”. And that’s viscerally painful for many people (myself included). So they can’t admit that. They can’t admit, “Wow, yeah, there’s a law against that and asking that that law be enforced is not unreasonable, it is how government is supposed to work.” So instead they parrot the bullshit excuses offered by the people who definitely know better but are paid to look the other way, and pretend everything is fine as yet more norms and laws are broken and we shovel another group of minorities into concentration camps as the administration says, “Oh, that’s cute, you expect the law to matter”.
This is how we get fascism, by the way.
+1
As to those arguing that Kellyanne’s situation demonstrates that the Hatch act is a bad idea and should be eliminated, be careful what you wish for. Those under the thumb of this act skew much more to the left than to the right.
I think you are horribly misreaded the poster you quoted. To like an offensive degree
My post was agreeing with the poster I quoted and referring to another poster in this thread who happens to be a lawyer and who made this very obvious mistake. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Ah, much clearer. I agree with your point 110%.
Kellyanne Crimewave is just the latest nominee in an administration full of criminal activity.
Longtime fed, I know of MANY feds who were fired for far less.
Not a big fan of Hatch, but it IS the law.
The law was named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico, not the recently retired Orrin of Utah.
His Wiki is like, half a page! County zoning commissioners get two pages!
And? 
And he probably thought you mistook one for the other, as it’s a little odd that you would have a strong opinion on a two term Senator from 70 years ago.
The word I omitted was “Act”, not any individual’s first name.
I’ve been a federal lawyer/judge for 30+ years. I used to defend mgmt actions against employees for Hatch Act violations. I (and I presume all fed employees) receive regular reminders of the Hatch Act and its implications, and I have never been a big fan of the Hatch ACT.
I do have opinions about both Senators named Hatch, but those are irrelevant to this thread, so it did not occur to me that someone would assume I was bringing them into the discussion.