Kellyanne Conway needs to be fired

[TitanTiger 20,472]

 

Quote

 

Kellyanne Conway Broke the Law Attacking Joe Biden in White House Driveway and Should Be Fired: Bush Ethics Chief

By Jessica Kwong On 5/2/19 at 11:13 AM EDT

A chief ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush accused Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway of breaking federal law yet again for bashing former Vice President and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on the White House driveway the past two days.

Conway, while speaking to reporters on Tuesday and Wednesday, talked down Biden. Former ethics chief Richard Painter flagged these actions as violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees other than elected officials from using their official positions to influence the result of an election.

“Oh we must be worried about Biden,” Conway said on Wednesday. “Look at what Kellyanne said today, so thanks for the free commercial on all the things Joe Biden didn’t get done for the eight years he was vice president.”

Painter told Newsweek on Thursday that Conway is “obviously attacking Joe Biden,” and, “this is a slam dunk Hatch Act violation.”

“She did it before, she got away with it when she trashed Doug Jones, and goes to the exact same spot trashing Joe Biden,” Painter said, referring to late 2017 when Conway slammed then-Senate candidate Democrat Doug Jones in front of the White House.

In March 2018, the Office of Special Counsel concluded that Conway indeed violated the Hatch Act speaking against Jones twice in her official capacity and recommended that recommended that the president take disciplinary action. But Conway has since remained at her post and received praise from President Donald Trump.

“The presumptive punishment is firing. They should have fired her the first time,” Painter said. “If President Trump will not remove White House officials who are clearly violating the law, he’s not doing his job and this would be yet another grounds for Congress considering impeaching and removing the president.”

Richard W. Painter@RWPUSA

 

 

Campaigning against @JoeBiden in an official interview? For @KellyannePolls this is her third Hatch Act violation.

Lawrence O’Donnell explained why he thinks Kellyanne Conway “is going to need a lawyer." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lawrence-odonnell-kellyanne-conway-breaking-law-video_n_5ccaa095e4b0e4d7572da402 … # via @HuffPost

 

2,974

7:03 AM - May 2, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Lawrence O’Donnell Runs Video Of Kellyanne Conway Allegedly Breaking The Law

"She’s going to need a lawyer," said the host of MSNBC's "The Last Word."

huffpost.com

 

1,610 people are talking about this

 

 

 

Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor, presumes that Conway went after Biden because he appears to be the biggest, if not one of the biggest, threats to Trump’s reelection.

“Look at the polls. In terms of going against Trump, I think he’s one of the strongest and maybe the strongest,” Painter said of Biden. “He appeals to a lot of those Trump voters who are not core Republican—Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, he appeals to that crowd.”

Conway’s allegedly illegal remarks against Biden were first raised by MSNBC’s The Last Word anchor Lawrence O’Donnell on Wednesday. O’Donnell aired a clip of Conway saying on Tuesday, “by the way while I’m on the subject of Biden.” 

The counselor to the president on Wednesday said: “I do find it fascinating that the former Vice President Joe Biden said that he asked President Obama not to endorse him, do not endorse me. But we know he’s open to endorsement because he got it from the management of the firefighters.”

“Will be fascinating to watch the other candidates who are tied within a margin of error in most polls,” Conway continued. “I can talk about them too, if you’d like, no problem.”

“Yes problem, very serious problem,” O’Donnell said. “It is the problem of breaking the law.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Newsweek on Thursday.

https://www.newsweek.com/kellyanne-conway-broke-law-hatch-act-violation-joe-biden-1412883

 

I'd have fired her a while back simply for being a dingbat.  But you can't just let people in your administration blatantly break the law in front of God and everybody like this and let her stay.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

34 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

I'd have fired her a while back simply for being a dingbat.  But you can't just let people in your administration blatantly break the law in front of God and everybody like this and let her stay.

Trump says, “Hold my near-beer.”

His supporters don’t care about the law, ethics or morality, only owning the libs.

[DKW 86 7,419]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump says, “Hold my near-beer.”

His supporters don’t care about the law, ethics or morality, only owning the libs.

Tex, I think you can say that about both parties and anyone in DC. Do you remember Clinton? Lied to the American people about Lewinsky, a WH intern that he would get #metoo-ed right out of office today for. He committed perjury, or lied under oath, and was found guilty in a courtroom of it. He was found guilty, not "was brought into court." He was found guilty. Yet he was defended by 3/4 of the Democrat Party at the time even though he did technically break the law. 

Was it worth all that? No. It was supposedly about sex and is between him and whomever. The problem for me and others was that it was sex with a true subordinate while at work. He, imho, was guilty of egregious bad judgment and should have been brought up on Workplace Sexual Harassment Charges. The joke back then was that Clinton had never known that "harass" was one word.  Back to the charges: Whether Lewinsky was agreeable or not, it would have made the WH a veritable shooting gallery for all the interns etc. It would have made for a very bad workplace for any underling female, no doubt. For me personally and professionally, the workplace should be crystalline clear that any sex between subordinates and employers is a lose-lose and not to be tolerated. 

GOT A TWO-FER FACEPALM on this one. Its gonna be a good day...

[SaltyTiger 7,793]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

His supporters don’t care about the law, ethics or morality

We understand that violating the Hatch Act in the manor that she did is very serious. 

A stern warning/reprimand should be appropriate but that is JMO.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

Just now, SaltyTiger said:

We understand that violating the Hatch Act in the manor that she did is very serious. 

A stern warning/reprimand should be appropriate but that is JMO.

How many hand slaps does one get for repeated violations?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

We understand that violating the Hatch Act in the manor that she did is very serious. 

A stern warning/reprimand should be appropriate but that is JMO.

The warning/reprimand should have happened after her Doug Jones comments.  This second violation should get her fired.

[SaltyTiger 7,793]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

How many hand slaps does one get for repeated violations?

As norm I would say three.

[Mikey 16,578]

Conway engineered Trump's victorious campaign against H. Clinton. Thus, she gets a lifetime pass from me. Not that my passes will get you free coffee in the basement lunchroom at the Capitol. When/if Hatch Act violations of this nature start getting prosecuted across the board, maybe this should get some attention. Until then, it's minutiae.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

26 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Conway engineered Trump's victorious campaign against H. Clinton. Thus, she gets a lifetime pass from me. Not that my passes will get you free coffee in the basement lunchroom at the Capitol. When/if Hatch Act violations of this nature start getting prosecuted across the board, maybe this should get some attention. Until then, it's minutiae.

Like I said, Trump supporters don’t care about the law, ethics or morality, only owning the libs.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 hours ago, Mikey said:

Conway engineered Trump's victorious campaign against H. Clinton. Thus, she gets a lifetime pass from me. Not that my passes will get you free coffee in the basement lunchroom at the Capitol. When/if Hatch Act violations of this nature start getting prosecuted across the board, maybe this should get some attention. Until then, it's minutiae.

Point proven.  $1 to Tex.

[Grumps 3,704]

I don't care if she gets fired for breaking the law, but it seems pretty funny that she should get fired for talking negatively about Biden when it seems that the Obama administration spied on Trump's campaign and that is no big deal.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

18 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I don't care if she gets fired for breaking the law, but it seems pretty funny that she should get fired for talking negatively about Biden when it seems that the Obama administration spied on Trump's campaign and that is no big deal.

Spying and investigating potential public corruption are two vastly different things.  Good take here from an FBI expert on investigating such things.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/opinion/trump-campaign-spying-fbi-russia-.html

[TitanTiger 20,472]

20 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I don't care if she gets fired for breaking the law, but it seems pretty funny that she should get fired for talking negatively about Biden when it seems that the Obama administration spied on Trump's campaign and that is no big deal.

I don't know about the latter thing, but the former is literally against the law.  And she'd done it once already and was called out for it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

How many hand slaps does one get for repeated violations?

Y’all are acting like she smashed her cell phone/old hard drives with a hammer or something..... 

Or that she directed someone to do same.... for one reason or another. I don’t get it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Someone explain to me the Hatch Act. Obviously y’all seem to be pretty certain/in agreement with the article. Seriously. Thanks. 

[SaltyTiger 7,793]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Someone explain to me the Hatch Act. Obviously y’all seem to be pretty certain/in agreement with the article. Seriously. Thanks. 

Understand why it was put in place originally. This article seems to be generated from the opinion of a review official itching to throw a flag.

[Mikey 16,578]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Someone explain to me the Hatch Act. Obviously y’all seem to be pretty certain/in agreement with the article. Seriously. Thanks. 

It's like this: When Loretta Lynch met with B. Clinton on the tarmac to plot campaign strategy, that was a Hatch Act violation but since nobody recorded it it couldn't be prosecuted and that makes everything about the incident cool with some people. Since Conway was recorded, and more to the point, since Conway isn't a part of the Obama/Clinton cartel, it's some sort of ghastly threat to the republic....according to those same people that winked at the tarmac incident.

[homersapien 11,367]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Someone explain to me the Hatch Act. Obviously y’all seem to be pretty certain/in agreement with the article. Seriously. Thanks. 

Hey, you're the law student.

Look it up yourself.  It will be for your own benefit.

[homersapien 11,367]

12 hours ago, Mikey said:

It's like this: When Loretta Lynch met with B. Clinton on the tarmac to plot campaign strategy, that was a Hatch Act violation but since nobody recorded it it couldn't be prosecuted and that makes everything about the incident cool with some people. Since Conway was recorded, and more to the point, since Conway isn't a part of the Obama/Clinton cartel, it's some sort of ghastly threat to the republic....according to those same people that winked at the tarmac incident.

Certainly not cool for me. 

Loretta Lynch deserved to be impeached for that meeting. It was stupid as well as unethical.

But that is a piss-poor excuse for simply disregarding present violations.  The law is the law.  We don't get a pass to ignore it for whatever may have happened in the past.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Hey, you're the law student.

Look it up yourself.  It will be for your own benefit.

Irrelevant. I’m sorry if I struck a nerve, but you’ll need to try hard and stay on topic or stick with smack talk. I know the serious forum is difficult for you. I won’t advise again. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

22 hours ago, homersapien said:

Hey, you're the law student.

 

And for the record, that is a false statement. If you’re going to break the rules, try not to lie at the same time. Very bad form. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

@homersapien if you don’t answer me in the next 10 minutes, I’ll subpoena your ass and I’ll take the dogs.

[homersapien 11,367]

22 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

And for the record, that is a false statement. If you’re going to break the rules, try not to lie at the same time. Very bad form. 

Sorry, I didn't realize you either graduated or dropped out.

There's a big difference between mistakenly making a false statement and a "lie".  If you graduated from law school, you'd know that. 

I suggest you need work on your own form. Start with accuracy.

[homersapien 11,367]

22 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Irrelevant. I’m sorry if I struck a nerve, but you’ll need to try hard and stay on topic or stick with smack talk. I know the serious forum is difficult for you. I won’t advise again. 

Where exactly did I go "off topic"?

I simply turned your style back on you.  I didn't change the topic. (There's that accuracy thing again. )

[homersapien 11,367]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

@homersapien if you don’t answer me in the next 10 minutes, I’ll subpoena your ass and I’ll take the dogs.

How many of my dogs do you want?  Perhaps we can work something out.