Lawyering, Media, Politics, Uncategorized

Government Ethics Office Rebukes White House Over Handling of Kellyanne Conway Violation

I recently criticized the ethics complaint filed against Presidential Advisor Kellyanne Conway by 15 ethics law professors. For full disclosure, Conway is one of my former students at George Washington University Law School (she graduated in 1995). I criticized the complaint as highly political with little foundation. The only aspect of the complaint that was not frivolous was the allegation that Conway violated the federal rule against endorsing commercial products in light of her comments about Ivanka’s line of clothing and jewelry. As I stated, Conway did violate the rule and I believe that she should have been punished with an official reprimand or some other equivalent measure.  However, I viewed the violation as part of a tongue-in-cheek retort to the controversy. The White House reached the same conclusion that there was no “nefarious” intent but it also declined to impose any formal punishment.  That decision has led to a relatively rare rebuke fromOffice of Governmental Ethics Director Walter Shaub.  Referring to Conway’s “free commercial,” Shaub expressed dismay over the failure to impose any punishment and further chastised deputy White House counsel Stefan Passantino for his explanation for the lack of any discipline.

In a letter sent to deputy White House counsel Stefan Passantino, Office of Governmental Ethics Director Walter Shaub objected to Passantino’s suggestion that the ethics rules do not apply to White House staff.  In fairness to Passantino, there is a good-faith debate over that legal issue.  However, it should not have mattered since Passantio stated that, while the White House disagreed that the rules technically applied, they would follow those rules.  He then however declined any discipline. (Ironically, Shaub objected to Passantino not supplying support for his proposition but Shaub does not supply much support for his opposing view).

Once again, I believe that a formal punishment was warranted even though I believe that people have blown the controversy out of proportion. In that regard, I agree with Shaub. The White House should be reaffirmed ethics principles with regard to its own staff at a time when it continues to assert that it is trying to “drain the swamp.” This is particularly the case when ranking congressional members formally asked the Ethics Office to look into the matter.

Notably, despite the controversy and calls for boycotting of the products,  Ivanka Trump’s line of products has experienced record sales.

143 thoughts on “Government Ethics Office Rebukes White House Over Handling of Kellyanne Conway Violation”

  1. Wow! you cite Fox News as the source for the highly questionable claim that Ivanka’s goods are experiencing record sales. How sad. Other outlets report the exact opposite: sales are in the toilet and they don’t want to carry her stuff. Not just Nordstrom, either.

    Conway is no newby or innocent. She is a deceitful, pathological liar. She brags about passing 4 different bar examinations, then, while on the public payroll, she not only promotes Trumps goods, but admits it is a “free commercial”. She can’t boast about her legal credentials and then expect a break when she does something unethical. She deserves to be disbarred and fired.

      1. Kelly Ann does not practice law. She is a political consultant. Her husband is a big time attorney. He was Paula Jones attorney and is it under consideration to be Trump’s solicitor general.

        1. Nothing is going to happen to her because her tribe is in charge of the Congress

          1. The really sad thing you don’t seem to want to accept anon is there are tribes outside of the Democrats and Republicans. The main one is the one standing for the rule of law. Not THE rule of law the D’s support or THE rule of law the R’s support, No, the rule of law that is supposed to limit both the D’s and the R’s to the negative liberties detailed in the constitution. This tribe is the force behind getting Trump elected and the GOP’s sweeping victories throughout this country. AND it will be the force that will keep Trump legitimately in check, as well as the force that will remove him and/or anyone else in the professional political class that wants to ignore the will of THIS tribe.

              1. “Data shows that republicans elected Trump.”

                That would be the correct way to spell it, with the little “r”. Thank you for making that point.

              2. Ninety percent of self identified republicans voted for Trump and 88 percent of self identified democrats voted for Clinton. His tribe was more loyal than hers. 🙂

      3. Because she’s proven, beyond any doubt, that she is fundamentally dishonest. She’s arrogant about it, too. She also violated federal law by plugging a product while on the public payroll.

        2. As we all know, they’re all liars, but has she committed perjury? And if she did violate federal law by what may very well have been an innocent plug for Ivanka’s product, I hardly think that’s as bad as something like tax fraud whereby most attorneys who are convicted are only suspended if they whine enough.

          I’m certainly not a fan of hers, but I think objectivity should prevail when it comes to calls to disbar her.

          1. If you knowingly lie and make a habit of lying the Rules of Professional Responsibility come into play: “Model Rule 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), for instance, states that a lawyer shall not, in the course of representing a client, “make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.””

            1. websterisback: what was the false statement of material fact? And, if that were the standard in the political arena, every one of our congressional representatives might be in violation of the rule you quote.

              It should be the standard, but it isn’t.

              1. That was my thought as well Steve. Not only would we gut Congress but we might not have many attorneys remaining to prosecute. 😉

                1. Gut em. But they have protected speech while in session. Conway, not making a statement in the courtroom. She is a pathological liar and brings disrespect to the profession by her lies.

  2. The jobs number has been running between 150.000 and 250,000 for quite a while. We have been in an economic recovery for some time although the fake news said otherwise. Let’s hope Trump can maintain it.

  3. Ignore the White Noise–Here’s the Trump Effect: Manufacturing boom! Jobs boom! Optimism boom! Debt down! Illegal immigration down! Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle)

  4. Hillary “burns” 33,000 emails after issuance of a subpoena for them and we’re quibbling over promoting a clothing line?

    Puck was right, “Lord, what fools these mortals be.”

    1. The problem we face is that the referees of the political order have discredited themselves.

    2. Her actions were unethical but let’s focus on the Trump male associates that are actually under FBI investigation.

    3. Hillary “burns” 33,000 emails.

      That is physically impossible to accomplish unless they were printed out.

      Then again, All of the Staff in the Executive Office are using private emails.

      1. Using private email is not considered to be a big deal in the Trump administration. What used to be considered to be potentially criminal is the new normal.

      3. Huma printed them all.Then they made a huge bonfire and burned them all while Anthony Weiner watched.

    1. It is safer to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than to confront a fool caught in foolishness.

  6. Trump should have properly vetted Flynn before taking him on board. Jettisoning a member of the team sucks. Or does getting in front of a mess and calling it a parade work for Repubs as well as it does for Dems? If so, it’s looking a lot like this is going to be a four year parade. 🙂

  7. Most politicians take the high and impossible road. They present themselves as honest and promise lots of stuff. Then, into the swamp they sink and misspeak, weasel, and lie in attempts to grab any branch and pull themselves out of the ever quickening sand. When all is said and done, ideologies aside, greased by legal speak, that is what provides fodder for the attentive eye of the opposition.

    DDT started somewhat differently and tactically made some bold and initially progressive moves. DDT simply lied through his whitened teeth, lied unrelentingly, lied over the top, lied when he didn’t even have to lie and telling the truth would be more to his advantage. DDT lied and lied and the people he stroked at the same time soon stopped caring under his soothing hand as it administered vaseline to the ego of national pride, the one every American gets as he lands in the land of the free and is automatically number one. They stopped caring because he sounds so good and it is simply too confusing to follow the untruths that emanate from that fish like mouth, or both.

    Now, the stage is set. We have distinctive sides with ‘our’ side holding almost all the cards. So, we can do whatever we want. We can lie, misrepresent, as long as we say its for security, to stop being taken advantage of, to make us great-again, etc. Sessions, Carson, the EPA idiot, and all the rest have been given the platform and now say things that if not completely idiotic are close enough to simply freeze their followers. How does one even begin to deal with slaves as immigrants, mankind having nothing to do with global warming, etc.? DDT established the platform. And, enough voters are too stupid or too confused to give a sh*t. I believe Socrates said something about this.

    2. issac – you clearly over-rate the Democrats and under-rate the Republicans and Independents.

      1. What Democrats? Oh those white ID left wing extremists. If you add the 40% independents to the Republicans it comes out 55% electoral wins over 45% electoral. which means Clintons 48.2% popular doesn’t mean squat much less wipe.

    4. Isaac – you say all this as if the solution is to put your magical leaders back into power while ignoring the fact that all politicians operate on this same platform you just outlined. And if, as you say, we already have enough voters “too stupid or too confused” to know better, and as Socrates said “only those who had thought about issues rationally and deeply should be let near a vote.” …..Then why would Democrats be leading the charge to push for lowering the voting age to 17? Would that not simply increase the tally of ‘stupid and confused’ uninformed voters deciding the fate or our nation?

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/9/dems-push-lower-voting-age-17-boost-george-soros/

      1. EXCELLENT! But as for the idea it has to be made gender equal this time and 18 was the age for military service. Now the boyz have to sign up at SSS.com or the high school office to get their student loans etc. But the gurlz get a free ride. How gender equal is that?

        The funny part is when the boyz signed that card they a. joining the rest of us in the social contract and b. volunteering or military duty at a later time. Think they realize that? If they didn’t it shows they don’t ‘think about issues rationally ‘

        1. Bob & Michael –

          If a 17-yr old is old enough to vote, then that same 17-yr old is also old enough to:

          – purchase and carry any firearm;
          – drive a motor vehicle;
          – purchase and consume alcohol, tobacco;
          – sign and enter into contracts;
          – (your favorite adult freedom here).

          BTW, show me your so-called SOCIAL CONTRACT, ’cause, I never signed SH!T …

  8. She said it “tongue in cheek”. Therefore punish her cheek for letting it out and not her tongue. Punishment should be one day without use of makeup.

  9. Once again, I believe that a formal punishment was warranted even though I believe that people have blown the controversy out of proportion. In that regard, I agree with Shaub.

    Both you and Shaub are unserious. (Shaub’s also a career government hack appointed by Obama. Only a fool assumes he’s impartial).

  10. Context is everything. You mentioned it was obviously tongue-in-cheek. That was clear to me when I heard it. We should always err on the side of free-speech

      1. websterisback – he made the mistake of saying it under oath. Then there was the little blue dress problem. 🙂

        1. Flynn and Sessions too. Hard to disagree with under oath perjury. It is understood that Sessions’s will lose his law license.

            1. Now that is a false premise that needs some back up but you will only get conjecture not facts from a left wing fascist of the war mongering party whose existence is based on marxist-leninism. Want to see me recite all the background for that?

        2. I do recall the deposing attorney in the Paula Jones action kicking himself for being too polite in deference to the president and not defining better what he meant with regard to sexual relations. He admitted that by the ambiguous definition he required Clinton to use, Clinton did not perjure himself during his deposition testimony. I don’t recall, however, whether Clinton’s five-year suspension from practice was related to that testimony or to Ken Starr’s investigation.

          1. Steve Groen – I read Monica’s depo when it was released. A riveting read. Found out that Clinton had genital herpes. Since he still seems to get around, I hope he is taking his meds to control it. Surprising it did not show up on any of his physicals.

            1. Paul –

              STD’s are not a routine test in most Blood Panels (unlike electrolytes, cholesterol, etc), unless indicated. Presumably, Ms. Lewinski specifically requested a STD Panel (?).

        3. i believe it was purple but that may have been a chemical reaction.

      2. Yes and so is this, “Except for under the desk blow jobs from ‘that woman’ but I only stained her dress just the one…mmmmm make that one diozen times does sexual gratification count as sex? Duuuhhhh.”

        Hows that for free speech?

    1. But Mommy didn’t you say all politicians are exempt?

      Yes Dear but only if they are properly socialist fascist oriented.”

    1. This is the first time I’ve ever seen Shepard Smith actually criticize a conservative (now former) government official. Wonders never cease, although I have to give credit where credit’s due. Thanks for the video, Joe.

  15. I am of the opinion that we should have AIG, accountably in government.

    I think the bar should sanction her. I also think that the White House should officially reprimand her.

    I also think Sessions should be reprimand from the White House as well as the Bar. Perjury is perjury however you classify it.

    I think Flynn should be sanctioned and reprimanded as he was acting for a foreign government Turkey, right before he took the Short term job without registration as required. The FBI clued him in that this willful violation of not registering could expose him to felony charges.

      1. Exactly. Selective outrage strikes again. Let’s add Eric Holder to that list. Funny, I don’t recall any uproar or calls for Holder to step down. And despite all the controversy and contempt charges, he never recused himself, nor were the charges pursued. Loretta Lynch did not recuse herself after meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac. Nor was the press pressuring her to recuse or step down.

        1. Lynch did recuse herself regarding Hillary’s emails after that meeting. However, now the speculation (for MA’s benefit) is that meeting was to tell Bill about the investigation regarding the servers at Trump Towers.

      2. You will of course provide some reasonable explanation of that curious statement with some facts, sources, etc. to back it up? No? We’ll start witht that and then you get to take an Econ 101 test to see if your posting name is also ‘fish head smelly.’

  16. President Trump made the right call with Michael Flynn’s resignation. Apparently Flynn has registered as a foreign agent for Turkey after receiving $530k for lobbying work provided prior to the election that “may have aided” the government of Turkey.

    2. Trump when asked said he did not have any clue as to Flynns’ Foreign Agent actions.

      2. Is there anyone in that White House that does not lie? The fish rots from the head.

        2. THAT is aftershave your wearing? Collective Chic? Leftist Allure? Wow that really does smell bad. starting with MacShumer an Pelosillyni

        3. And, Pancreatic Cancer usually starts in the tail (I know; my father got it that way).

  18. The Buy-cott for Ivanka’s line is working. Having said that, I think Conway should be officially rebuked. She made a ‘newbie’ mistake.

    1. But what is this ethics committee etc doing still having an opinion. Yesterdays news and she is not acting as an attorney according to the job description. Plous she’s got her campaign managing business to consider.

      Lawyers in the USA are a thin dime a dozen good campaign managers are pure gold.

      1. Michael Aarethun – I think she violated the Hatch Act. In this case, not a big deal, just trying to defend the daughter of her boss.

  19. But isn’t the clothes they wear, the restaurants they eat at, the commercial flights government takes, all commercial endorsements?
    My goodness they are splitting hairs
    And muffling free speech all at the same time.

    1. It’s like supporting invading Kosovo and not KIuwait or Iraq. For those folks in the collectives it depends on whose ragheads are being genocided and whose rags are being touted and shilled.

    1. Yeah, you’re right. How about investigating Denis Hastert’s ties to Turkey?

      1. Or the Podesta’s brothers ties to Russia and Russian banks bribes to get the WH to remove sanctions against Russia?

    2. Wow! Issac didn’t get his fix today. How long are the lines for collective clone programming. Not as many as there used to be ….the self induced clonettes are ….horrors….starting to think for themselves and go elsewhere. And that little bit of radical reasoning went out when we dumped Carter. But it is fun to watch the worms squirm and cast about frantically for ‘the meaning of life’ …. or something.

Comments are closed.