Office of Special Counsel Calls For Removal Of Kellyanne Conway

The Office of Special Counsel today took the extraordinary step of recommending the removal of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway from federal office for violations of the Hatch Act. That Act bars federal employees from engaging in political activity in the course of their work and Conway has been repeatedly cited with violations. (For the record, Kellyanne Conway is one of my former students).

The report submitted to President Trump cited Conway’s “disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media.” She is described as a “repeat offender.”

As I have said before, Conway has clearly violated the Act in the past and has shown at times a mocking dismissal of its provisions. However, the Act lacks any real teeth. Conway’s firing would depend on Trump, who is not likely to follow the recommendation.

The Act often leaves a certain ambiguity for aides like Conway who hold political portfolios. Conway is expected to defend the President and his policies. However, she has crossed the line by openly supporting some Republican candidates from the White House. Past advisers have accomplished the same result by stopping short of an outright call to voters.

Conway has been open in her disregard for the federal law and said that some were trying to “silence her” with the Hatch Act. The problem is that this is a federal law and one does not have the discretion to comply or not comply as a federal employee. The OSC stressed “Ms. Conway’s violations, if left unpunished, would send a message to all federal employees that they need not abide by the Hatch Act’s restrictions. Her actions thus erode the principal foundation of our democratic system—the rule of law.” 

For Trump, disregarding such a rare recommendation will further magnify criticism of the ethical standards in the White House. This includes Trump’s disregard of long-standing policies against nepotism in the use of his daughter and son-in-law in key (though unpaid) positions. This recommendation is a rare move by the OSC and shows how serious it considers the underlying conduct to be.

131 thoughts on “Office of Special Counsel Calls For Removal Of Kellyanne Conway”

  1. No one pays attention to it unless they think it can be used against a Constitutionalist.

  2. “The OSC report itself stated that in one Feb. 19 interview on “Fox & Friends,” Conway “insinuated that Senator Booker was ‘sexist’ and a ‘tinny’ ‘motivational speaker,’” and claimed Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was “’lying’” about her ethnicity. Conway also “attacked” former Rep. Beto O’Rourke for not “thinking the women running are good enough to be President.”

    In its conclusion, the OSC said that Conway “has substantial knowledge of the Hatch Act and was previously found to have violated the law by engaging in similar conduc.”

    I see no problem at all since all of the above are substantially true. Furthermore we elected by a big majority President Trump to both expose and destroy those whose only purpose is to complete their revolution against our Constitutional Republic in favor of their foreign ideology oriented failed system.

    Even our various Oaths of Office state it the same way… preserve, protect, defend The Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic

    They proudly jump up and state that goal, refuse to take the oath or if taking it violate it so what’s the big deal? Just because we’re defending our Country and our Constitution? Guaranteed the rest of the country speaks in much more varied and harsher terms about them. I’ll go further. Booker is both sexist and a racist. Warren was lying and has underlying motives to line her own purse. Beatle Boy is completely unprepared to even think about such an office. whose nick name denotes ‘a little boy.’

    Ii’m wondering why Biden wasn’t on the list (eight years as VP and did nothing to prepare himself for the top job or Motor Mouth Harris. with her two word yes or no acceptable answer.

    Conway was and has always been light and polite on those named. They deserve far more truth and in the harshest terms possible. I only have to remember they are not Constitutionalists and are foreign ideologues.

    /s/ Constitutional Centrist

  3. JT wrote:

    “For Trump, disregarding such a rare recommendation will further magnify criticism of the ethical standards in the White House.”

    No, that’s sugar coating and should read:

    “…disregarding such a rare recommendation will further magnify the complete lack of ethical standards in the White House.”

    1. It’s not a recommendation for Trump, it’s a recommendation to Congress for their consideration to determine if impeachment is necessary to remove her from whatever position she holds in our government, whether or not Trump wants her to remain in that position!

      The power and authority of the Union supersedes all other authority granted to anyone in government including the president!

      1. She is not impeachable; she is an advisor not a cabinet member. Pompous name dim brain, coincidence? I think not.

        1. Everyone within the Federal Government System is impeachable, and what’s more, there can be no one within the Federal Government System that is not Provided for By the Constitution, or by Law!

          Where did you learn the Constitution, Cliff Notes probably!

  4. There is a word not much in use these days that describes Trump, Conway and his entire Administration: “scofflaw”. They literally scoff at the law, as Trump did yesterday when interviewed by George Stephanolopous. Conway was previously confronted about her violations of the Hatch Act, and her response was: “blah, blah, blah. Let me know when I have to report to jail.” This is from someone who brags about passing 3 bar examinations. Yesterday, Trump confirmed that he would also violate federal law if a foreign national or government offered him dirt on an opponent by not only accepting the assistance, but not notifying the FBI. No, Trump isn’t going to fire her. He could care less.

    The real risk in this country is outrage overload. They are a blemish on our dignity as a nation. They need to go.

    1. These rants from Natacha remind you that no matter how unattractive Kellyanne Conway may be, Natacha is a lot less attractive.

        1. Using TIA’s words:

          These rants* from TIA x 8 remind you that no matter how unattractive Kellyanne Conway may be, TIA x 8 is a lot less attractive.

          *and stupid comments — my addition

      1. I’m opining about them because all of your posts are emotional, obnoxious, and feature neuralgic reactions to your peculiar set of bogies. The same tropes are repeated over and over. It would be foolish of me to draw a conclusion that you have any motives that aren’t in some manner, ignoble. (The maraschino on top is your fictional backstory).

        My suggestion to you,madam, is offered here by the ever insufferable Margaret Carlson.

        1. Let’s forward that to Karen S and a few other people. You might read it yourself TIA.

          And speaking of “insufferable”… It fits you perfectly.

  5. Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks??? Nothing itself speaks but Arithmetic.

  6. Penny Wise And Pound Foolish

    Professor Turley is consumed by a nebulous charge of violation of the Hatch Act, which is a routine act by governmental employees/politicians, as the Good Professor completely ignored the treasonous and grossly egregious violation of the Constitution by Obama of seeking candidacy for the office of president while quashing the requirement to be a “natural born citizen.”

    Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

    Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of his birth.

    – A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

    – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

    – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

    – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

    – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

    – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations,1758, did.


    Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

    Book 1, Ch. 19

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


    Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

    “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”


    To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

    From John Jay

    New York 25 July 1787

    Dear Sir

    I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

    Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

    Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

    which sailed Yesterday.

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

    provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

    administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the

    american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

    Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

    I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

    John Jay

    1. Of course the NYT’s has been doing excellent coverage of the HK protests, including news reporting and it’s editorial positions. Kurtz wrongly claimed they were ignoring it when in fact it had front page coverage 2 days before kurtz discovered it on whatever crap source he watches for bias confirmation. When this was pointed out to him – with links – he refused to correct himself and doubled down on his completely false accusation, of which, this post is just another.

        1. Thanks for that reference to the 1930’s but that wasn’t what your recent completely wrong posts were about

          1. are you working to polish the NYT’s reputation for free? how admirable of you. Are you a newspaper boy or girl?

            They’re lame, they perpetually fail to cover China properly, and the past week’s exceptions you alluded to only prove the rule.

            And how stupid is it, considering the massive Chinese population of NYC, which could actually buy the NYT if it was a real business seeking profit?

            And therein lies more potential proof of my conspiracy theory. That the CPC officials have greased the NYT somehow to under-report on their mischief, precisely BECAUSE of all the Chinese living right there in NYC.

            1. I’m sorry kurtz, nothing you post is worthy of response since you lack the self respect to correct for facts. I’ve already destroyed this argument and you know it.

              1. good, stop responding then. you just keep repeating the same erroneous position you staked out before. i could care less if you want to carry water for the pathetic mass media.

                meanwhile, I’ll keep an eye on things in Hong Kong, and others can be more properly informed as to developments, as they are related from reliable on the ground sources which I will be providing for free

                Go on now, scoot back behind the paywall at the NYT and into your bubble

                1. kurtz, your position was the one proved erroneous and you know that as well. Rarely in fact is it possible to be proven that wrong in a political argument, but you managed by misrepresenting factual matters. Once confronted with those facts you didn’t try to disprove them – impossible – or correct your posts. You’re a little man with out self respect. Slink off.until you grow a spine.

            2. and now i will provide evidence that Chinese agents have tried exactly that.


              With international scrutiny growing on Huawei’s activities, the company is desperately trying every trick in the book. Their methods include bribing American journalists in a bid to influence them to put out reports framing the corporation in a positive light. Huawei is facing boycotts in several nations due to its association with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and allegations of spying.

              Bribe attempt
              Josh Rogin, a reporter for The Washington Post, was one of the first U.S. journalists to expose Huawei’s bribery attempts. Rogin received an email stating that he could visit Huawei’s campus in Shenzhen and meet company executives for “off-record discussions” on the challenges Huawei was facing in the United States.

              The letter also asked Rogin to not discuss the content with anyone else. But the journalist went ahead and posted the email on Twitter for the world to see. “#Huawei is inviting me on an all-expenses-paid junket to China? That’s gonna be a hard pass. Any American journalist who takes Huawei money should be ashamed and shamed,” he said in a tweet.

              After the tweet, several pro-Chinese media outlets ran a campaign against Rogin, accusing him of “blowing things out of proportion.” A TV station in China also did an entire show around the incident.

              (Image: Screen Shot/ Youtube)
              Huawei seems to not understand that Western journalists operate differently than those in China. (Image: Screenshot / YouTube)

              However, Rogin isn’t the only one who has received such messages from Huawei representatives. Anna Swanson, a journalist with The New York Times, confirmed the same. “Huawei sent out a letter to U.S. journalists inviting us to visit their campuses. The invitation was sent to my colleagues and I… via the Chinese embassy,” she said in a tweet.

              The fact that Huawei chose to send the invitation through a government channel rather than their own offices is another indication of how the corporation is deeply connected to the CCP. The company seems to not understand that Western journalists operate differently than those in China.

              “While taking such trips are a common occurrence in the Chinese news industry, accepting free junkets for journalists is a major line not to be crossed in the West, as it could impact the objectivity of the journalist,” according to The Epoch Times.

              1. so there is verification that they have tried….those attempts failed

                but the mass media is not going to self report on instances where they got paid to lick Chinese Communist Party leadership boots– and complied.

                But if you read these papers’ coverage long enough, it’s apparent

                1. not me, the sources I linked above. you can read, i think. judge for yourself. my reputation is nothing, what matters is truth

                  the truth is: a) underreporting of PRC mischief against its people by the vaunted american mass media, guardian of our liberties, watchers of human rights etc etc, and b) why

                    1. “……What made that coverage somewhat surprising — especially given how opaque, and frankly tedious, the congresses tend to be — is where Qiao Bao is based: Alhambra, California.

                      The American daily serves up mostly Beijing-friendly news to more than 100,000 Chinese readers in at least 15 major cities in the United States, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Houston, Boston, and Washington.

                      The enthusiastic coverage of official Beijing is no accident. In recent years, and especially since Xi became president in 2012, the Chinese government has sought various ways to increase its influence over China’s 40 million-strong diaspora. The Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, a ministry specifically dedicated to the task, works to extend the party’s reach, and the push has seen increasing success in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, where local ethnic Chinese organizations have begun to vocally push for pro-Beijing policies.

                      The campaign is an important part of Beijing’s long-term “strategy to create favorable public opinion globally for [the party’s] agenda,” says Bill Bishop, the author of Sinocism, a newsletter widely read by China experts and journalists.

                      When Chinese leaders talk about the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” — a reference to China’s global rise after several centuries of weakness and decline — “it very specifically includes the Chinese diaspora,” he says.

                      Publications like Qiao Bao have become a natural targetPublications like Qiao Bao have become a natural target; they’re much easier to influence because, unlike media published in local languages, most local governments “don’t really pay attention to the Chinese-language media,” Bishop says.
                      Qiao Bao (the name means “overseas Chinese newspaper”) is about 28 years old and is owned by a U.S. company, Rhythm Media Group, which is incorporated in California and also maintains an office in Beijing. Rhythm Media also owns Chinese-language radio stations in Seattle and Bellevue, Washington.

                      The newspaper’s founder and chairman, Xie Yining, moved to the United States in 1990 after working as a journalist for the state-run China News Service.

                      While Qiao Bao’s coverage of local news is typically straightforward, its take on China-related topics often closely echoes that found in China’s own heavily regulated and censored newspapers.

                      The relationship seems to run both ways; Qiao Bao content often shows up on mainland Chinese news sites, whose syndication relationships are tightly controlled by the government. In July 2016, for instance, the online news platform Sina reposted a Qiao Bao article titled “Overseas Chinese in Seattle support China’s sovereignty in the South China Sea.” And this October, a Shanxi province government-run website posted, “America’s ‘Qiao Bao’ exposes the hypocrisy of Western human rights defenders.”

                      According to the Qiao Bao website, one of its partner publications is the English-language website of the Global Times, a strongly nationalist paper published on the mainland and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.

                      Qiao Bao even looks different than other U.S.-based Chinese-language media. Take Ming Pao, whose owners are based in Hong Kong, or the World Journal, whose owners are based in Taiwan. Such newspapers are printed with traditional Chinese characters, the script used in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and historic overseas Chinese communities. Qiao Bao, by contrast, uses simplified characters — just like mainland China.

                      Also like China-based newspapers, Qiao Bao often avoids major topics that might offend Beijing.Also like China-based newspapers, Qiao Bao often avoids major topics that might offend Beijing. For example, a search of Qiao Bao’s website reveals only a handful of mentions of the Chinese dissident and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, whose death this year made headlines around the world. (A search for Liu’s name on the World Journal website, by contrast, reveals hundreds of results.)
                      In an emailed statement to Foreign Policy, Qiao Bao Editor in Chief I-Der Jeng acknowledged that his newspaper hadn’t covered Liu’s death but insisted it was because there were conflicting reports on the topic.

                      “Rather than providing readers with unverified information (negative or positive), the editorial board decided not to report it when sources at hand were not reliable and conclusive,” he wrote.

                      And he denied that the newspaper avoids sensitive political topics or parrots Beijing’s line. Jeng insisted that the 11 consecutive days of front-page treatment given to the party congress was a decision made by the editorial staff, which concluded that “this event had huge news value and reports on it would be well-received by our readers.”

                      In his email, Jeng also wrote that the newspaper does not communicate with any Chinese government department or party organization regarding its editorial content and that Qiao Bao does not receive funding from any government or party source. The paper sells advertisements to buyers in mainland China and the United States.

                      The publication “holds accuracy, objectivity, truthfulness, impartiality, and public responsibility as its journalistic standards,” he said.

                      But the newspaper and its leadership do appear to engage frequently with top Chinese — and American — officials.

                      In a January 2015 photo, Ren Hongyu, the general manager of Rhythm Media, is seen cutting a cake together with San Francisco Chinese Consul General Luo Linquan to celebrate the launch of the group’s Seattle radio station.

                      And the paper pays inordinate attention to the dictates coming out of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, though Jeng said Qiao Bao is not under the supervision of that office.

                      The newspaper’s former editorial board director, Fan Dongsheng, who served from 1999 to 2006, came to Qiao Bao after serving as the editor in chief of a Chinese publication that was officially affiliated with the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office.

                      In April and November 2016, Xie attended Overseas Chinese Affairs Office events in Jiangsu province, according to reports posted to government websites, and Qiao Bao frequently provides coverage of the office, including hundreds of pieces referring to speeches and comments by Qiu Yuanping, the director of the office.

                      On Oct. 23, near the end of the big party congress, Qiao Bao’s front page featured a large photo of Qiu, with her most recent directive as the top headline: “Write good overseas Chinese articles.”


                2. How could the PRC influence journalists? Aside from the usual inducements, like junkets and outright bribes?

                  I will just suggest one possibility.

                  the PRC (china) offers a ten year visa to Americans who qualify.
                  “business people” is the main target ostensibly.
                  a ten year visa to china is valuable
                  it was introduced in the Obama years, years of warming to the PRC

                  anybody who does have a 10 year visa to the PRC, has something of value

                  normally, getting certain things from the PRC requires… influence

                  but sometimes, gifts come up front…. and the influence comes upon the recipient, later

                  an American journalist with a 10 year china visa, has something of value

                  the PRC expects something in return
                  they keep close track of people and have massive databases of information not just about their citizens…. but about key americans, too

                  Those valuable 10 year visas? They can cancel those visas if they like.

                  you get the idea.

  7. The Office of Special Counsel is led by Henry Kerner, a partisan hack. Judicial Watch has already exposed Kerner for the hack that he is. In April 2013, Kerner, who was then staff director and chief counsel to the late RINO John McCain, met with Lois Lerner and others from the IRS. This was only weeks before the IRS targeting scandal broke. Kerner met with the IRS to discuss conservative 501(c)4 organizations and sought to destroy them. Kerner suggested that the IRS go after these groups by auditing them and to audit “so many, it becomes financially ruinous.” Kerner sought to help Lois Lerner and then President Obama destroy conservative political organizations — to use the power of government to bankrupt these groups and to silence them. So, it surprise nobody that Henry Kerner, a foe of the First Amendment, would seek to attack conservative Kellyanne Conway’s free speech.

    There’s nothing remotely “ethical” about Henry Kerner.

    1. If this is true, the people Trump needs to fire work in the White House personnel office.

    2. James, non of those Proxy Groups or Bundlers were ‘destroyed’. The IRS was forced to back down when the Republican Congress threatened to punish them with major budget cuts.

  8. The problem is that this is a federal law and one does not have the discretion to comply or not comply as a federal employee.

    We can already hear Hillary Clinton, James Comey, John Brennan, Loretta Lynch sitting on Bill Clinton’s knee on an airport tarmac, FBI agents, et al laughing their red azzes off

    Ignore the OIC. They are like an old worn out hoe who is tricking for mo’ money and desperate for attention

  9. For Trump, disregarding such a rare recommendation will further magnify criticism of the ethical standards in the White House.

    Disregarding such a recommendation would show that Trump isn’t intimidated by humbugs.

  10. It’s time to investigate the crimes of the Mueller dossier and its perpetrators.

  11. I take it the Office of Special Counsel doesn’t have enough work to do.

  12. If you understand how our Government is assembled, and how it functions, she should have never been in the White House in any Capacity without the Senate first establishing the position, then appointing her through their Advice and Consent, and if she was appointed by the proper process and needed to be removed, then the President, or one of the Executive Department heads, should have advised Congress of the need to remove her for their consideration, and if the States as they are assembled in the House determined the need to remove her then it would have been their responsibility to impeach her and forward her case to the Senate for removal.

    The President only has the authority to appoint and remove those persons holding lower positions that the Senate has identified that can be filled by the President without their advice and consent.

    By the way, all this is in Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution in plain language. Maybe everyone should try reading and following the Constitution instead of just paying it lip service!

    The Senate is the States assembled in Congress as Equals with Equal Suffrage, the embodiment of the Union itself, as well as the predominant Governing institution and the safety valve of our Governing System.

    1. In its report to Congress, the GAO identified 321 presidentially appointed (PA) positions governmentwide that do not require Senate confirmation. Many include the advisors in his office which should include Kelly.

      1. Wow, you are Thick, and gullible to boot. The GAO and the Executive Branch don’t tell the Senate who is and isn’t appointed by the President without their Advice and Consent, they tell the President which positions throughout the Government which need their approval, even before the position is created, and what’s more, the Senate can resend that authority at will, and they don’t need to pass legislation to do it!

        Let me cite the appropriate Constitutional reference;

        A2.S2.C2 of the US Constitution; “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

        And just in case you were wondering, saying the Senate is the Same as saying Congress, because Congress is an Assembly of the States, and the Senate is an Assembly of the States as Equals which has the power of Concurrence over all Laws and all Treaties, basically all Foreign and Domestic Policy.

        And if you don’t believe me, then get yourself a tutor to help you comprehend the Constitution as written.

        The Executive Branch works for, and reports to, the Union, the United States, in Congress Assembled, no single person, Department, or Party is above the authority of the Union!

  13. Please!
    Robert Mueller said he was finished weeks ago.
    NOW, his office comes out with this garbage?
    What? Is Andrew Weissmann still around to go after other people?

    I know this will never stop but I hope it works against the Dems in every facet of their political being because people are sick of their sore loser attitude.

    1. I’m sure this won’t matter to you but the Office of Special Counsel has nothing to do with Mueller, Weissman or even Democrats necessarily. There is a rule, she is in violation, none of you care.

      1. Let’s say you are right.

        Has Federal employee SCOTUS Justice Ginsberg and other progressive Federal employees committed the exact same violation when they personally attacked Trump?

        Progressives don’t care about that.

        1. The Hatch Act only applies to the Executive Branch with certain exceptions, (Pres., VP, and a few others of which Conway is not one) There Ginsburg and as notably Scalia and Thomas can’t violate the Hatch Act. Thomas has incorrectly filled out disclosure forms, leaving out his wife’s pay from her partisan group (I recall $700,000 but don’t want to waste time looking it up). Scalia took pay from and other things of value like hunting trips from partisan groups that appear before the court. Ginsberg certainly violated protocol but didn’t literally work for partisan groups.
          And let’s just not say I’m right as if there’s a possibility I’m not. I’m right, and you don’t care.

          1. (I recall $700,000 but don’t want to waste time looking it up).

            Unless she was the President of Ohio State, she almost certainly wasn’t paid that.

              1. That’s spread out over five calendar years. And that’s taking the LA Times at face value. Even 15 years later, few of those who’ve worked at Heritage and revealed their salaries to Glassdoor report anything near that. In 2005, a salary of $138,000 was 3.4x mean cash compensation per worker. An equivalent figure today would be about $174,000. There are two sorts of people who commonly receive compensation in that range: those in managerial jobs and those employed as licensed medical professionals. She is neither.

                1. The key here is the failure to disclose and the possible influence. You’re making my case about people who refuse to believe. The third type of person who gets paid well over a half-million (over five years) is someone getting paid to produce a result. Why do you imagine the Heritage Foundation paid that type of money to the wife of a Supreme Court Justice? Use your imagine. This was on the front page of a major newspaper and given nationwide coverage. I know this because I monitor several news sources. You didn’t know it and still doubt it because??? Instead of doubting everything you don’t want to believe, check it out, do some research, find the retraction that would surely exist were this not true. Is refusing to acknowledge the truth the only way you can justify your support of certain politicical positions?

          2. And let’s just not say I’m right as if there’s a possibility I’m not. I’m right, and you don’t care.

        2. BTW, Henry Kerner heads up the Office of Special Counsel and is a Trump appointee. You could make the case that Trump never vets any of his employees and he could easily be a Democrat spy? That would be acknowledging Trump’ incompetence though.

          1. Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein were also Trump appointees. Kerner was an aide to John McCain.

            We’re talking about a piece of legislation meant to prevent politicians from turning the civil service into a political machine and this fellow Kerner maintains that a political appointee whose business is public relations is in violation for making cutting remarks about Democratic pols.

          2. I’ll admit he was incompetent as hell at sanitizing the former officials who should have been replaced.

            I think he sincerely didnt believe he would win, was not fully ready for the unexpected win, and then the transition was handled poorly by people who did not serve him well.

            1. Again, the problem is structural. An absurd number of officials have to be confirmed by the Senate and Senate rules allow the minority to gum up the works, something McConnell could have addressed but did not.

              1. Senate rules don’t mean anything, and the constitutional terminology is by and with advice and consent, which are before and during the appointment process, not confirmation which is an after process.

                You will not find the terms ratification and confirmation anywhere in Article 2. Section 2. Clause 2 which comers the negotiation of treaties and appointments.

    2. Wrong office, this was not done by Mueller, this was referred by a permanent ethics board

      Dom’t expect much as Trump has no ethics

      1. He wasn’t hired for that he was hired to expose and destroy a group of foreign ideologists who have nothing to with Our Constitutional Republic and have no morals, values, ethics nor standards except those preached by V.I. Lenin.

    1. It does and if it was worth anything all the left would be looking for a job… in someone else’s country.

  14. So what’s the problem with Conway? I doubt she paid $150 million for that information and it isn’t as if it’s wrong.

  15. Where was the Hatch Act when Karl Rove was a Special Advisor to President Bush 43? The WH is going to have some political operatives, especially in a first term’s latter years, when re-election of the President becomes a WH goal.

    1. It’s a reasonable inference the two are estranged. He’s not going anywhere because he’s already gone somewhere.

Comments are closed.