Kellyanne Conway violated Hatch Act twice. Recommended to Presidents office for disciplinary action

[urvile]

Lock her up!

Build that wall!

 

[Greenman]

It is sort of weird for me, as a male I guess, I couldnt fuck someone I found stupid if my life depended on it

Don't just give up. You need to apply yourself, work at it, adopt a "never give up" attitude keep slugging away. I'm in your corner on this one buddy.

 

[BoomerD]

But...but...of greater importance...did she INTEND to violate the Hatch rule?

 

[interchange]

I agreed with it.

"Personally, I don't think that this is a big deal in itself. "

I don't either. It's a minor violation of the hatch Act. Whoop-dee-damn-doo.

I don't think it's a minor violation of the Hatch Act. That would be the case for the Obama administration's violation that you used for comparison. This was clear-cut inappropriate. I also don't think it was significantly influential or pervasive. Slap on the wrist isn't the appropriate response, but neither do I think firing her should be.

What you chose to respond to, however, is 10% of my post and not the 90% geared at exploring the false equivalency you proposed. Will you address that piece?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I don't think it's a minor violation of the Hatch Act. That would be the case for the Obama administration's violation that you used for comparison. This was clear-cut inappropriate. I also don't think it was significantly influential or pervasive. Slap on the wrist isn't the appropriate response, but neither do I think firing her should be.

What you chose to respond to, however, is 10% of my post and not the 90% geared at exploring the false equivalency you proposed. Will you address that piece?

No, the rest of your post was just meandering bullshit. I replied to your main point.

 

[interchange]

No, the rest of your post was just meandering bullshit. I replied to your main point.

Perhaps you can provide reasoning for your classification of my post as "meandering bullshit". If you would rather evade, I'd prefer if your response simply says "I don't intend to answer that". I'll respect your right not to.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Perhaps you can provide reasoning for your classification of my post as "meandering bullshit". If you would rather evade, I'd prefer if your response simply says "I don't intend to answer that". I'll respect your right not to.

Your point seemed to be that since Sebelius committed a crime, but in a lesser degree than Conway and that the punishment should scale with it. My opinion is that the crime is the crime and the amount of degree is immaterial. You disagree. OK.

 

[interchange]

Your point seemed to be that since Sebelius committed a crime, but in a lesser degree than Conway and that the punishment should scale with it. My opinion is that the crime is the crime and the amount of degree is immaterial. You disagree. OK.

Thanks for elaborating. Is it your opinion that all offenses should be enforced with equal punishment regardless of the circumstances of the violation? Should we punish everyone who we catch offending? Or should we apply the law selectively for any particular reason?

 

[WelshBloke]

Thanks for elaborating. Is it your opinion that all offenses should be enforced with equal punishment regardless of the circumstances of the violation? Should we punish everyone who we catch offending? Or should we apply the law selectively for any particular reason?

Yeah. I feel like there's going to be some serious back pedaling soon!

 

[interchange]

Yeah. I feel like there's going to be some serious back pedaling soon!

If you want to take the next round, be my guest.

 

[hal2kilo]

This cure you of that? Just imaging plowing Beavis... the sounds he'd make...

Yea, she's a butterface.

 

[dyna]

She should get the same punishment as Justice Ginsburg.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Thanks for elaborating. Is it your opinion that all offenses should be enforced with equal punishment regardless of the circumstances of the violation? Should we punish everyone who we catch offending? Or should we apply the law selectively for any particular reason?

Nope, some should scale with damage or impact, but it's something that needs to be consistent and equally enforced.

 

[fskimospy]

She should get the same punishment as Justice Ginsburg.

Ginsburg didn't violate the Hatch Act though, Conway did. It would be impossible for Ginsburg to violate it anyway as the Hatch Act only applies to the executive branch.

 

[interchange]

Nope, some should scale with damage or impact, but it's something that needs to be consistent and equally enforced.

So how do you determine which offenses should have flat punishments and which shouldn't?

 

[dyna]

Ginsburg didn't violate the Hatch Act though, Conway did. It would be impossible for Ginsburg to violate it anyway as the Hatch Act only applies to the executive branch.

I didn't catch that it was executive branch only. The article refers to it as federal employees which I assume she is but if its executive branch only then I guess she can go political all she wants.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So how do you determine which offenses should have flat punishments and which shouldn't?

What does the law say?

 

[interchange]

What does the law say?

https://hatchact.uslegal.com/penalties/

Tell me, wouldn't you describe that as exactly consistent with my position and opposite to yours?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

https://hatchact.uslegal.com/penalties/

Tell me, wouldn't you describe that as exactly consistent with my position and opposite to yours?

No, as I stated earlier, if Sebelius (a Democrat) was given a slap on the wrist and token fine. The same punishment should be applied to Conway (a Republican).

 

[interchange]

No, as I stated earlier, if Sebelius (a Democrat) was given a slap on the wrist and token fine. The same punishment should be applied to Conway (a Republican).

"The Board takes into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, including: (1) the nature of the offense and the extent of the employee’s participation; (2) the employee’s motive and intent; (3) whether the employee received the advice of counsel regarding the activities at issue; (4) whether the employee ceased the activities at issue; (5) the employee’s past employment record; and (6) the political coloring of the employee’s activities. The decision as to whether removal is warranted is a matter of administrative discretion."

So you must be saying that Sebelius's violation is equivalent to Conway's if you're advocating for the same punishment. Either that or you're saying we should apply the law differently than what is written. Which one is it?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

"The Board takes into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, including: (1) the nature of the offense and the extent of the employee’s participation; (2) the employee’s motive and intent; (3) whether the employee received the advice of counsel regarding the activities at issue; (4) whether the employee ceased the activities at issue; (5) the employee’s past employment record; and (6) the political coloring of the employee’s activities. The decision as to whether removal is warranted is a matter of administrative discretion."

So you must be saying that Sebelius's violation is equivalent to Conway's if you're advocating for the same punishment. Either that or you're saying we should apply the law differently than what is written. Which one is it?

"is a matter of administrative discretion" apply the same punishment. Same as Castro in 2016.

 

[interchange]

"is a matter of administrative discretion" apply the same punishment. Same as Castro in 2016.

Why is it you believe the same level of administrative discretion should apply to each of these offenses?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Why is it you believe the same level of administrative discretion should apply to each of these offenses?

In the cases during the Obama Administration the punishment was minimal. The same should apply to the Trump Administration.

 

[Thebobo]

Ginsburg didn't violate the Hatch Act though, Conway did. It would be impossible for Ginsburg to violate it anyway as the Hatch Act only applies to the executive branch.

And all of the governments civil servants. But I get what your saying.

 

[Thebobo]

In the cases during the Obama Administration the punishment was minimal. The same should apply to the Trump Administration.

I think for punishment she has to allow Trump to grab her putang in public. That ok with you? Oh and on live TV.