This is very good. But it also raises a question as to why OSC didn't seek fines against Kellyanne Conway for her dozens of violations. The law exempts Senate-confirmed political appointees from fines. Other political appointees, like Conway and Patton, are not exempt.
Here's another odd feature of this decision. OSC often closes investigations when someone leaves government. I don't agree with that practice, but it bears noting they closed a Hatch Act violation of Comey when he left government. I'd like to see statistics on such closures.
Here's a letter from a Senator noting that “OSC historically closes Hatch Act investigations of individuals who separate from federal service.” Again, I disagree with that practice, but I'd be curious to know if there had been exceptions in the past.
hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
I'm asking about these statistics because, when I think about DOJ's lawsuit against Omarosa, I'm starting to wonder if a pattern is emerging when it comes to going after former officials. Two cases isn't necessarily a pattern, but it's enough to warrant the release of statistics.
Note: OSC issued a policy in 2018 saying it has discretion as to closing a case after an official quits. But the policy's subjective and creates potential for abuse. (Embarrassingly, the policy incorrectly says the max fine is $1,000, which is wrong. LOL) osc.gov/Documents/Hatc…
Here's the law exempting only Senate-confirmed appointees from the $1,125 fine. As you can see, it doesn't exempt other political appointees like Conway & Patton. They're both awful. So what is it about Patton that led to harsher treatment than Conway?🤔 law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/…
Reporters: Here are 3 questions to ask OSC (whose staff read my tweets and have time to gather answers):
1—How many Trump appointees were assessed fines?
2—How many resigned after you received a Hatch Act complaint about them?
3—How many of those did you pursue after resignation?
and . . .
4—How many were Black?
Here's a list of Trump appointees OSC claimed violated the Hatch Act. I don't think this is even a complete list. But I think OSC assessed a fine against only one of these individuals.
It's possible OSC has a legitimate explanation. If so, I hope they'll share it with reporters. Equal treatment under the law is important, and the government owes it to the public to demonstrate that it's delivering equal treatment. Good on OSC if they do that, bad if they don't.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Walter Shaub

Walter Shaub Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @waltshaub

7 Apr
Two distinct responsibilities of govt are: (1) to use the power we give it solely for the benefit of all of us, (2) demonstrate that it’s using the power solely for the benefit of all of us. The 2nd of these is important too. So I have questions about the Lynne Patton decision./1
Asking questions is the responsibility of citizens in a republic. Govt officials should understand that and comport themselves professionally when confronted with questions, instead of lashing out at the questioners. The questions don’t suggest answers. They are only questions./2
So here are questions for OSC:
1. Is Lynne Patton the 1st political appointee to pay a Hatch Act fine? If so, why? If not, who else was assessed a fine?
2. Is she the first political appointee to be barred from govt service for 4 years? If so, why? If not, who else? /3
Read 9 tweets
4 Apr
Do only hipster doofuses (doofi?) say that something “slaps” or is this a thing now?
It’s like that year people in my high school said things were “sporty.” It was as if they’d all changed their name to Chad and hankered to wear a sweater over their preppy shoulders.
Listen, you ginchy hep cats, if using rad phrases is important to you, that’s boss. Twenty-three skiddoo! Be as groovy as you want. Just stop using “bop” to describe any kind of music that isn’t a form of jazz. Because that’s totally bogus and not fetch. Far out.
Read 4 tweets
2 Apr
DOJ has continued to pursue its lawsuit against Omarosa Manigault Newman for failing to file a termination report, even though she eventually filed it. Weirdly, DOJ's argument is that she filed it late. But the law imposes a $200 late fee. DOJ wants $65,585 for her lateness.🤔
Technically, DOJ's argument is that she must pay the civil monetary penalties for failing to file a financial disclosure report, even though she did file it (because she was late in filing it). Discovery is ongoing. Yesterday, the parties submitted a joint status report.
DOJ also hinges its argument on a claim that her tardy termination report is not complete. Whether that's true or not is a factual issue, however. (I haven't seen the report.)
Read 4 tweets
1 Apr
I’m going to share something but turn off the responses because this subject always provokes response that range from gratuitously vicious to profoundly ignorant. Cruel people and well-meaning people alike are profoundly ignorant on the issue of weight. It’s complex. /1
However complex you may think it is, it’s thousands times more complex. I’ve spent tens & tens of thousands of dollars trying to change my weight. I’ve lost & regained more weight than most of you weigh. I’ve worked with experts. The idea that it’s a lack of effort is ignorant./2
The idea that it’s easy is ignorant. Most studies are either small or limited to a year. Over 5 years about 95% regain, with many adding more. Are there exceptions? Yes. But the truth is there is no treatment that has been shown to work for most people. /3
Read 23 tweets
18 Mar
I want to share an observation that some people will appreciate and some people will find annoying. But, if you follow me, you know that my approach is to be authentic and share things on Twitter. You get the real me instead of a "brand." So here goes. /1
I've noticed a shift in people's interest in government ethics and, if you follow me, you know that's my primary focus. And when I say a shift, I should be clear that I mean a shift in the *volume* of people interested in it. Many (maybe most) of you are still very interested. /2
I think a (hopefully small) percentage of people followed me for the criticism of Trump and not for government ethics talk. These are mostly newer followers, not those of you who put the OG in OGE. (The newer ones may not even know what OGE is.) /3
Read 14 tweets
17 Mar
Ok, bear with me. Read this thread before posting your knee jerk "he just started" response.

Biden ran on an anticorruption platform because the corrupt Trump presidency was a low point in the institution's history. And he made big promises—I mean BIG promises—for reform.
/1
When I say "big" I'm not kidding. Biden promised to get Congress to enact "more aggressive" reform than it did after Watergate when it passed the Ethics in Government Act, the Inspector General Act, the Civil Service Reform Act and the Presidential Records Act!! Big!
/2
Biden saw the need to protect us against the next corrupt Trump-like president. And he said that despite knowing what a challenge it would be to get his proposals through Congress. He wasn't vague either. He was specific about the laws he said he would "enact." (His word.)
/3
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!