https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/30/six-white-house-officials-violated-the-hatch-act-with-political-tweets.html>WASHINGTON – Six Trump White House officials violated the Hatch Act by using their official government social media accounts to engage in political activity, according to a ruling issued Friday by an internal government watchdog agency>The staffers cited include Trump's executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout; principal White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah; deputy communications director Jessica Ditto; Vice President Mike Pence's press secretary Alyssah Farrah; former White House director of media affairs Helen Aguirre Ferré, who left in August; and Jacob Wood, a deputy communications director at the Office of Management and Budget.>None of the officials will face disciplinary action for these violations, the Office of Special Counsel wrote in a letter Friday. (This agency is different from the Justice Department Special Counsel's Office, which is led by Robert Mueller.) Instead, each of the aides has been advised that "if in the future they engage in prohibited political activity ... we will consider such activity to be a willful and knowing violation of the law, which could result in further action.">Signed into law in 1939, the Hatch Act bars employees of the executive branch from using their official positions to actively support or oppose any candidate for federal office. This can mean making political speeches for a candidate, sending letters or endorsements, or publicly promoting one party over another. The president and vice president, however, are exempt from the restrictions. When the OSC finds that employees have violated the Hatch Act, the consequences are typically minimal, and usually consist of a warning or sometimes a remedial briefing on the rules.>Friday's rulings were issued in response to formal complaints filed by the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit public interest watchdog group.
Westerhout was cited for two tweets she posted this spring, both of which contained the acronym MAGA, which is short for Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again.">Farah was also cited for a MAGA tweet in May that read, "This is what #MAGA looks like: Under @POTUS TRUMP, the unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 17 years.">Wood and Aguirre Ferré were also both cited for posting tweets that had MAGA in them.>Shah's violation consisted of a June 4 tweet in which he wrote, "Fantastic @RNCResearch release #Winning: 500 Days of American Greatness." The OSC found that Shah's tweet "highlighted research done by a political party and provided a link to the party's website and its research," which constituted a Hatch Act violation.>The final aide to be cited, Jessica Ditto, had committed a violation by retweeting Shah's tweet with the RNC research link, OSC found.>The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC on Friday about the ruling.>CREW's executive director, Noah Bookbinder, said in a statement that the group was "glad" to see the rulings, but he cautioned that official warnings have so far not been enough to stop the steady stream of Hatch Act violations being committed by aides in the Trump White House.>In the five months since the most recent of these Hatch Act violations were committed, Bookbinder said CREW has filed 11 additional complaints with the OSC about apparent violations.>This is hardly the first time that Trump officials have been in hot water for using their official taxpayer funded platforms to advocate for partisan political candidates. Senior White House advisor Kellyanne Conway, White House social media director Dan Scavino and outgoing ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley have all received formal reprimands from OSC for Hatch Act violations since Trump took office.
>The violations prompted OSC to issue additional guidelines earlier this year, expressly prohibiting federal employees from posting messages that include "MAGA" or the phrase "Make America Great Again" on their government social media accounts.
Speaking of the Hatch Act and how it's only okay when Republicans violate it.>New rule says government workers can’t even dislike Trumphttps://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/500-osc-hatch-act-advisory-novembe/6255daba98ab1a42d079/optimized/full.pdfNew guidance says federal employees can't use the word 'resist' or mention impeachment.http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/federal-employees-cant-talk-trumps-impeachment-at-work.html
>>321143>A Republican creates this act>Republicans violate it anywayWhat the fuck?
>>323205Political Parties are corrupt. You thought it was black and white?
>>321146Wrongful termination suit here I come
>>323209I know how you guys like to pretend that things aren't simple to put into categories anymore but being corrupt is not "grey", in fact it's pretty "black". Most things also aren't "grey" just because you're okay with them. A man stealing bread to fee his family is bad, him paying it back is good. You don't mix the two together because they are separate acts.
>>323263'Anymore'? They never were. Look at history, humans are complicated and have complex social interactions/hierarchies. Morality is completely subjective. A man stealing food to survive is not necessarily 'black'. Survival is the top priority of any animal, humans included. Are you saying someone should let themselves starve (suicide) rather than find a means to survive (potentially stealing food)? Just because that man doesn't have the means in that society to buy or acquire food, doesn't mean he is evil, or bad. People can be born into poverty and it can be very hard to get out. Things aren't 'gray' because people feel they are. Events, decisions, and actions are 'gray' because there will always be someone who views them as 'white', and someone who views them as 'black'. Not to mention those who will simply choose not to label events as 'white' or 'black', 'good' or 'evil'. Events are, they happen. Personally, what matters to me is why they happen. What set of circumstances led to the event? You have to mix the acts together, because one leads to the other. Events in people's lives are not disconnected actions floating in space. Everything is a product of what came before. Did the man steal the food because he likes the thrill of the taboo? Is his family starving and he has no options? Is there a famine, driving food prices up so that only the societally favored can eat? Or was it simply an impulse, where there was an opportunity to easily steal something, and he did it, even if he didn't need it? Your ideas on morality are naive at best. Things aren't black and white just because you disagree or agree with them. It's the society that decides as a whole what events they tolerate, accept, or perform, and what events they decide are unnecessary, unwanted, or deplorable. These have changed throughout history, change continuously today, and will change in the future. There is no absolute truth in morality, only what you decide to accept as true.