OK, then. Good luck with your analysis. I’m interested in how it gets to court. What did you find about the CFR and how its violation might get into court?
Patience my friend, patience. I feel positive about it. Don’t you? I’m not in need of any luck that anyone else doesn’t need too. I’m just watching the republican shit show. What this event seems to be is a fulcrum to open a door. Chaffetz was prodded to act. It’s not a trump family member, so she might be fair game to teach donnie a lesson in government. She got “counseled” and of course donnie is upset by that statement, made by his own press secretary! SNAFU. How young do you have to be not to see where things like this are headed? 3, 4? At long last…
I assume you are walking back that argument about it not being a violation because “redressing wrongs” against Ivanka is protected speech, or something.
No, since I never made that argument, I’m not walking it back.
But it seems to me that there are a couple general patterns in play here.
In one of them, people post incomplete and inaccurate summaries and understanding of the regulatory framework in play here. Then no prosecutions happen. And them people post dark imprecations at the corruption that allows someone in a powerful position to dodge prosecution.
We saw this dynamic play out with the (few) posters here who believed that Secretary Clinton should be locked up. They were impervious to all attempts to explain how the law was typically applied, presumably because those facts conflicted with what they desperately wanted to believe.
And now we’re seeing it again. I spent a fair amount of time explaining the Clinton situation, but so far as I can tell I wasn’t able to sway anyone away from the conviction that she should be locked up. And in that discussion, I had the benefit of the doubt: I was a conservative, defending a Democrat.
Here, I am a conservative defending a . . . well, theoretically a Republican. So undoubtedly some people are dismissing my words as partisan defense.
Well you seem to distinguish between “righting a financial wrong” and “promoting a financial interest”, in your analysis. You can’t go into court with that.
But comparing hillary emails to conways behavior makes no sense. Hillary was investigated for this and it was well in the hands of vigorous agents prosecuting it. Furthermore her life was scrutinized for 30 years or more. How are these situations related in any way? If anything the treatment of hillary, both recently, and over the last 30 years would argue for the vigorous investigation and/or prosecution of conway. I’m sure you were not against hillarys investigations, just the piling on after she was cleared right?
When a conservative here says “I don’t have the energy” don’t we know what that means? …Please…
Not again. For the first time in this thread, please explain your understanding of how the violation of the particular portion of the Code of Federal Regulations ends up in court.
Then I’ll be happy to explain the distinction I was picturing.
Here is the way they are related: both contain conduct that seems to technically violate a federal statute or regulation, but both are of a character that means that they would not typically be used in a formal proceeding to show violation.
I personally think your parallels to the Clinton case are very apt, and I do not expect Conway to be prosecuted or whatnot.
However, some of your hedges in this thread about her endorsement – for example, that she was merely stating her personal opinion – are ill-considered. When public servants are performing their job, it is a poor idea to assert that they be allowed to spontaneously step out of their role as a government employee to perform some action that would otherwise be prohibited, and then step back into the role of government official to continue their business.
In my opinion, that idea of switching back and forth instantaneously between public and private roles is an aggravating circumstance to her error in judgment, rather than a mitigating one. Imagine a Secretary of Commerce going to a meeting with GM executives, and during the course of the conversation, starting to arm-twist them for campaign contributions to the President. Saying that the Secretary was simply doing so as a private citizen, and not a government official, is no excuse.
Sorry, I should have said “comparable” and not “related.”
The point stands. They are not comparable at all, except as “before/ after”, and “republican/ democrat” double standards. Hillary had 30 years of investigation and hearings and was clear. The aggressive treatment of Hillary, which you were a proponent of, by simple common sense argues for the investigation and/or prosecution of not just conway but donald and a growing list of administration names.
I’m not interested in going to court. People get punished for breaking the laws in different ways. Hillary never went to court either. conway in court is minor compared with the need for some bright lights shining on the situation. If you don’t want that to happen I’d say it’s a double standard and indefensible.
Sorry, I assumed you did based on your affiliation. If we were talking openly and without spin I would say: Then what was your position then? how does this standard apply to the current admin? Do you admit conway broke the law?
I understand you are the conservative lawyer who swoops in to lawsplain why conservative crimes are unprosecutable, too minor, unindictable, just like the other side did it, or whatever gradation you can defend.
I voted for clintons 3 times for president. I don’t claim specialness for them or me, but I don’t want to get spit on either. I think citizens deserve one standard, no matter who they voted for.
That’s fair. You’re easier on teddy than I was just after I read “senatorial privelege.” Halcyon, golden, salad days… How little we knew…How innocent we were, and he may or may not have been.
True. But we can only offer judgement based on what we know, not what we suspect, especially if we’re discussing criminal law. And from that perspective, what happened was an accident, not a crime. Tragic, of course. But accidental.
I’m still not clear on the definition of “ethics violation” Must it be a crime? If it occurs, what is the way it is called out and moves through the system?
As far as going to court: I think people who voted democrat lately are feeling that they would like as much “justice” as Mcconnell, gowdy, chaffetz, cotton et al are willing to assert for themselves, at the taxpayers expense.
And this has never involved going to court. In other words democratic interests do not have to be about courtroom prosecution any more than republican strategy is.
Violation of the CFR mentioned in post 13 is covered by 5 CFR § 2635.106, which provides only that violation “…may be cause for appropriate corrective or disciplinary action to be taken under applicable government-wide regulations or agency procedures.” So we’re talking about an adverse personnel action.
While such actions can be as severe as dismissal, under this section they require warning or counselling an employee first, along with an order directing the employee to take specific action to terminate an ongoing violation. Dismissal from government employment can follow if that order is not obeyed. Additional correction action can include change of assignment, disqualification, divestiture, waiver, the creation of a qualified diversified or blind trust, or counseling.
The way it is called out and moves through the system:
It is the responsibility of the employing agency to initiate appropriate disciplinary or corrective action in individual cases. The agency head or the agency Inspector General will begin this by conducting an investigation. If the results of the investigation warrant, the agency must notify the employee in writing of the suspected violation, the right to respond orally and in writing, and the right to be represented. The investigation, together with the employee response, will be used by the agency head to reach a decision as to what corrective action to require.
The decision may be appealed to the Director of the Office of Government Ethics.
If you’re interested, I can walk through that process as well.
With regards the falling sales of Ivanka Trump branded clothing. It may or may not be true that sales fell. However, I would not take the reasons given at face value. The Trump brand may have embarrassed these stores in the run up to the election. We don’t know how well the brand was pushed. Her clothes may have been pushed to a hidden corner of some stores. We really don’t know for sure what was going on. I wouldn’t rule anything in or out at this stage, but her brand being “boycotted” by many consumers is a reasonable enough scenario.
