Imagine being the head of the @US_OSC, which is responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act, and standing by silently as the president and his staff abuse the people's government by using the White House to host a party's nominating convention. You'd go down in history as complicit.

This breach of norms will send a message to the world that the U.S. is not serious about government ethics, to the federal workforce that their leaders are free to use the government to influence elections, and to the people that the chief public servant is now public-served.

It'll likely cause violations of the Hatch Act's criminal or administrative positions. Trump and his lieutenants will direct others to help, they won't be transparent about reimbursing the govt, and TONIGHT they'll use the rose garden—a part of the WH used for official business.

They are not allowed to use parts of the WH that are used for official business (like the Rose Garden), they're not allowed to direct lower-level staff to help set up, they shouldn't be using government equipment, they should fully (and transparently) reimburse the government.

The Trump appointee leading OSC said lower-level staff could help out on their free time if they (a) are doing it on their free time outside work hours and (b) are not doing it in a part of the White House used for official activities. But this is sloppy and weak leadership.

First he overlooked the criminal provision at 18 USC 610, which applies to Trump and his top aides too, that prohibits "directing" any executive branch employee to engage in political activity. The nature of the employee-subordinate relationship is inherently coercive.

There is no "volunteering" to do work for the party after hours. In misuse of position cases, OGE has said that a subordinate can't volunteer to wash a supervisor's car on the weekend. Even a cheerful request for volunteers must be presumed to be coercive in all contexts.

Moreover, even if we can get over that hurdle, how in the world are these low-level staffers going to do their work without passing through parts of the White House that are used for official purposes? Even the room where chairs are stored for press conferences is official space.

Lest you think I'm being nitpicky here, let me share the double standard to which Henry Kerner, head of OSC, holds low-level career officials: He has said they can be fired it they tweet " #resist" on a personal twitter account, using a personal phone, on a lunch break at work.

OSC also says merely tweeting " #resist" can get you in trouble, but openly engaging in Tea Party activity at work is permissible because, according to OSC, "Tea Party" is a vague "umbrella term" not associated with a party. I've never met a Tea Party Democrat. Or a unicorn.

There's another category of WH officials: senior presidential aides. This is where it gets complicated. There are two laws 5 USC 7323 & 5 USC 7324. Sec. 7323 prohibits using an official position to influence an election. Sec. 7324 prohibits political activity on duty or at work.

For senior presidential aides, there's an exception to section 7324 that allows them to engage in political activity on duty or at work if they're paid from funds for the WH. But the exception does not excuse them from section 7323. (Like I said it gets complicated.)

These senior presidential aides can engage in political activity despite the prohibition in section 7324. But they can't use "official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."

So watch to see if Ivanka Trump is identified by her title as a presidential aide when she speaks at the convention. Again, if this seems nitpicky, remember that OSC is aggressively investigating career-level government officials and seeking to have them fired. Double standard.

Technically, neither Ivanka nor Jared should be doing any political activity at the White House because they are not paid from WH funds. We raised this with Kerner's office, and it was shrugged off. Ho hum, laws. Amirite?

Even beyond the legality, however, there's the destruction of ethical norms. This is an unprecedented abuse of government position to advance a party. If Joe's camp had called up and said, they're sending Kamala over to give a Rose Garden speech, you think they'd have allowed it?

It'd be humiliating for any head of OSC to have the WH do this on his or her watch. But to let it happen without publicly speaking out, holding a press conference or issuing clear and highly detailed guidance to help the public understand what's happening, well, that's failure.