Read on Twitter
Brace yourself for weirdness from the office responsible for fighting Hatch Act violations. I won't attribute a cause, I'll just describe it. I leave it to you to interpret what's going on here. Ok, here we go:
It's the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (no relation to Mueller). /1
It's the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (no relation to Mueller). /1
OSC enforces the Hatch Act, which bars misuse of public office to influence partisan elections. We filed a complaint when Jared Kushner talked up Trump's campaign on CNN. Part of the interview ran on TV and part ran in an article that CNN published online. /2
OSC rejected the complaint because the worst part of the interview was in the article, not on TV. They said they can't consider that part because it was printed online.
Um, what??
The Hatch Act doesn't only prohibit activity that appears on TV. So the decision made no sense. /3
Um, what??
The Hatch Act doesn't only prohibit activity that appears on TV. So the decision made no sense. /3
OSC's decision is especially weird because CNN has the largest online news portal in the world. Its readership is many times greater than the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal combined. But Kushner's words didn't count because they weren't on TV? /4
We filed another complaint against Kushner. This one was about his running Trump's campaign from the White House. There's an exception to the Hatch Act that lets people paid to work in the White House do some political work. But Kushner isn't paid at all. So he doesn't qualify./5
That may sound like a technicality, but Kushner made the choice not to be paid. That choice gets him out of being covered by a particular conflict of interest law. So it isn't a technicality, it has a substantive effect. But OSC has decided to ignore that fact.
/6
/6
OSC says the exception applies because it *would* apply if he HAD chosen to be paid. Um, what?
Can a prosecutor charge Kushner if he violates the conflict of interest law?
"But juuudge, you should convict him because he *would* have been covered by the law if he WERE paid."
/7
Can a prosecutor charge Kushner if he violates the conflict of interest law?
"But juuudge, you should convict him because he *would* have been covered by the law if he WERE paid."
/7
Of course not. Neither the conflict of interest law nor the Hatch Act exception applies to Kushner.
But OSC called this argument "absurd." Yes, folks, OSC said it is "absurd" to think a law means what it says. Shame on us.
But wait, buckle up, OSC is not done getting weird.
/8
But OSC called this argument "absurd." Yes, folks, OSC said it is "absurd" to think a law means what it says. Shame on us.
But wait, buckle up, OSC is not done getting weird.
/8
If the exception applies, Kushner can rely on it. But for what?
OSC said in 2011 and again in 2020 that it only permits "incidental" (minimal) political activity during normal working hours on govt property.
But Kushner has reportedly spent extensive amounts of time on it. /9
OSC said in 2011 and again in 2020 that it only permits "incidental" (minimal) political activity during normal working hours on govt property.
But Kushner has reportedly spent extensive amounts of time on it. /9
So under OSC's "incidental" political activity limitation, Kushner should not be able to rely on the exception for his extensive political activity, right? Woah, hold your horses. Don't be "absurd."
OSC now says, "incidental" is ANYTHING less than full time.
Goalpost moved. /10
OSC now says, "incidental" is ANYTHING less than full time.
Goalpost moved. /10
Yessiree. OSC had a theory. OSC held onto that theory for at least 9 years. Then OSC's commitment to that theory gets tested in the complaint against Kushner, and . . .
Well, there I go being "absurd."
This isn't the first time OSC has been inconsistent in recent memory.
/11
Well, there I go being "absurd."
This isn't the first time OSC has been inconsistent in recent memory.
/11
OSC says "tea party" activity's allowed in a federal workplace because "tea party" is an "umbrella term" not specific to one party.
(Who HASN'T received endless solicitations from all those tea party Democrats?)
But OSC says you can't say "resist" because it's partisan.
/12
(Who HASN'T received endless solicitations from all those tea party Democrats?)
But OSC says you can't say "resist" because it's partisan.
/12
OSC issued a clarification. It explained that you CAN say you need to "resist chocolate." (Phew! What a relief.)
But OSC reaffirmed that an employee can be fired for tweeting "resist" at work... on a personal Twitter account... using their own phone... while on lunch break.
/13
But OSC reaffirmed that an employee can be fired for tweeting "resist" at work... on a personal Twitter account... using their own phone... while on lunch break.
/13
The Trump appointee running OSC is firm about "resist" being SPECIFICALLY a campaign message that means ONLY that you should vote against Trump.
It can't POSSIBLY mean that you fly down to the Tornillo concentration camp to oppose child separations in a non-election year.
/14
It can't POSSIBLY mean that you fly down to the Tornillo concentration camp to oppose child separations in a non-election year.
/14
Before you say it's inconsistent for OSC to treat "tea party" and "resist" differently, do be sure to remember OSC's sage advice not to be "absurd."
Don't you go running around uttering absurdities like what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You silly goose.
/15
Don't you go running around uttering absurdities like what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You silly goose.
/15
OSC is online at www. osc .gov.
The primary image and message on OSC's website since LAST SUMMER has been an agent inserting a swab into a person's mouth, with this caption:
"Special Counsel Applauds Rule to Initiate DNA Collection from Undocumented Criminal Detainees."
/16
The primary image and message on OSC's website since LAST SUMMER has been an agent inserting a swab into a person's mouth, with this caption:
"Special Counsel Applauds Rule to Initiate DNA Collection from Undocumented Criminal Detainees."
/16
Here's a copy of CREW's complaint about Kushner's campaign activity:
/17 https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/jared-kushner-trump-campaign-white-house/
/17 https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/jared-kushner-trump-campaign-white-house/
Here's a copy of CREW's letter challenging OSC's weird response to its Hatch Act complaint about the TV interview:
/18 https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/kushner-hatch-act-osc-erred/
/18 https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/kushner-hatch-act-osc-erred/
Here's a copy of CREW's original Hatch Act complaint against Kushner:
/19 https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/hatch-act-complaint-jared-kushner/
/19 https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/hatch-act-complaint-jared-kushner/
What all this means about OSC and its chief, Special Counsel Henry Kerner, I leave for you to decide.
Feel free to share your thoughts.
/20
http://www.osc.gov
Feel free to share your thoughts.
/20
http://www.osc.gov
