Perhaps it hasn’t been prosecuted before because it hasn’t been necessary. In 50 years, I can’t recall any similarly high level government official outright telling people to go buy a friend’s product. Not even Billy Beer enjoyed this level of executive support. If the closest example we can come up with is Truman’s letter then I say, first, Truman’s case is much less direct in that he doesn’t explicitly tell people to go out and buy his daughter’s music. Second, I would agree that his letter was possibly illegal and wouldn’t have complained if the appropriate authorities investigated it.
If Conwaye came out and said “Oops, I shouldn’t have done that” I think most people would write it off as a minor beginner’s mistake. But after watching sixteen years of Democratic presidents being hounded for every real or imagined infraction, I think they (the Democrats) should hang stuff like this around the administration’s neck until they stop doing it.
Are you saying that § 2635.702 has never been used, or has never been used on such a highly positioned individual?
Assuming the latter, is it because people in those positions generally take their responsibilities seriously, and don’t break the laws, or is it because people in that high of a position are insulated against prosecution?
I’ll agree with you that no action will be likely taken, but I don’t know that I agree that no action could be taken, and I certainly do not agree that no action should be taken.
That said, I am sure she will break some other law again tomorrow (if she hasn’t already at the time of this posting) that is even more egregious, and just as likely to cost anyone in the admin anything.
Issues like this might make for fodder for political advertisements in the next election both 2018 and 2020. Obviously such ads will have no effect on the True Believers but for independents there was a lot of reaction to Hillary being corrupt (whether she was is not the point). I can see ads showing that Trump was in (spiritual) violation of ethics rules and didn’t discipline employees that violated ethics rules being an election issue.
I will answer this question, but before I do, maybe I can save myself some time.
Did you happen to follow the debate over Secretary Clinton’s mail practices - the one that caused then-candidate Trump to lead chants of “lock her up?”
Do you recall, in any of that debate, anyone posing a similar question about the regulations concerning classified materials after being told that Clinton’s conduct was not prosecutable?
It’s never been invoked against someone who was acting under circumstances like these: she was not acting for financial gain; she couched her commentary as an opinion; she made the comment in response to a question rather than as a commercialized, advertised endorsement.
For example, if the Secretary of Commerce is touring a small factory and outside there are some neighborhood kids with a lemonade stand, he might buy a lemonade for a photo op and say, “This is the best lemonade I’d ever had! You kids are going to be successful entrepreneurs!”
That conduct violates the CFR. But no one would generally consider taking action.
Well, it’s a CFR, a regulation, not a criminal statute. so I’m not sure if prosecution is even possible. (There might be a federal statute that makes violation of the CFR a crime, but I don’t know of it).
This may shock you but members of Congress are not all legal or Constitutional experts. They sometimes pass laws that would be impossible to enforce or are unconstitutional. Actual legal experts tasked with prosecuting will stay away from the iffy ones unless they are under pressure to push them.
Anyway this whole thing is pretty ridiculous. Can’t believe how much the presidency is being tarnished in so short a time.
If only members of Congress had legal professionals they could turn to to make sure the bills they’re sponsoring are consistent with the law. We could have a an office of lawyers for the Senate, and maybe even one for the House of Reps.
If the presidency is being tarnished in so short a time, it’s because the office holder is doing things that no other president has done before.
I don’t know about the US but Denis Thatcher got into trouble for using No 10 Downing Street (i.e. the Prime Minister’s) letter-paper, so it would definitely be unethical over here.
I agree with your other points, but given the plain language of the regulation, you don’t think that she realized that her actions could result in financial gain for her friend? That she didn’t specifically intend to financially benefit her friend with her endorsement?
Accurate though. They gave many examples where 45 criticized Obama over and over and over and over for playing golf. But here he is now, off playing golf.
They gave written examples of how 45 claimed he would never take time off. Here he is now, taking time off.
Does everyone understand the difference between the United States Code (USC, statutes passed by Congress) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR, regulations promulgated by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States) as it applies here?
The CFR (sometimes called ‘administrative law’) is not passed by Congress. Congress passes enabling legislation that allows agencies to create rules. The CFR is a collection of those rules.
I think she would say her motive was redressing the wrong that was done (in her view). And because the other factors I mentioned all point to a similar conclusion – she didn’t record a commercial or publish a testimonial letter, for example, but just responded to a question – I think there would be difficulty in using this regulation in this situation.
Kellyanne Conway: "“It’s a wonderful line. I own some of it. “I fully — I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online.”
Just in case you missed what she actually said, on a major television show, with a very large audience.