Federal investigators probing possible Whitaker Hatch Act violations

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Federal investigators are investigating whether acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker violated federal law after it was revealed his failed 2014 Iowa Senate campaign received thousands of dollars of donations in January and February of this year.

The investigators are probing whether Whitaker’s accepting of the donations, amounting to $8,800, violated the Hatch Act’s prohibitions on political activities by federal employees.

A spokesperson for the Office of Special Counsel confirmed to CNN that it had received a complaint from the watchdog organization American Oversight and a case file had been opened. The office has the power to investigate Hatch Act violations and determine possible reprimands, but cannot take disciplinary action itself, according to CNN.

"After years of being completely dormant and only after he joined Jeff Sessions' office as chief of staff, Whitaker's campaign started receiving a cluster of contributions," Austin Evers, the executive director of American Oversight, told CNN. "It appears to violate the black-letter law of the Hatch Act."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/417955-federal-investigators-probing-possible-whitaker-hatch-act-violations

[PJMcK]

1. Good

Lock him up.

[Jarqui]

2. No surprise

[Scurrilous]

3. K&R

[RockRaven]

4. Someone parse this language along-side me, please...

"A spokesperson for the Office of Special Counsel confirmed to CNN that it had received a complaint from the watchdog organization American Oversight and a case file had been opened. The office has the power to investigate Hatch Act violations and determine possible reprimands..."

Why does the *Office of Special Counsel* have the authority to investigate Hatch Act violations of *Whitaker*? Do they have that authority for *any* party or just a subset which includes Whitaker? If a subset, is that subset "senior DOJ officials" or "people already subjects of other OSC investigations" or what?

What are we supposed to read between the lines about Mueller and Whitaker here, if anything?

[sarah FAILIN]

5. How else do you expect him to collect his bribes???

[former9thward]

6. Penalty for a Hatch Act violation is a slap on the wrist.

It is the weakest federal law there is.

[Midnight Writer]

7. Wow. Maybe the Department of Justice will look into this.

[James48]

8. Ref your question

Rock raven-

1. OSC is the organization which investigates ALL Hatch Act allegations. Agencies don’t ever investigate Hatch Act. That’s how it is set up.

2. Until Trump, Hatch Act violations were always considered very serious. If it was intentional, most times the employee is fired. OSC investigates, then refers the results to the employing agency.

The employing agency fires. Rarely a suspension would occur. But always Something. At least until Trump made a mockery of the law.

Now only non-Executives get fired.

Executives, especially political appointees, have been slapped on the wrist, or appear to get nothing done at all. Kellyanne comes to mind.

Here is a link to Hatch Act info- accepting campaign cash is a huge no-no.

https://osc.gov/Pages/The-Hatch-Act-Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Federal-Employees-and-the-Use-of-Social-Media-and-Email.aspx

[James48]

9. Holy Cow! More!

Wednesday it looks like at least THREE separate complaints have been filed on Whitaker’s financial disclosures-

Besides the cash Hatch Act problem, there is more:

Somebody changed the forms AFTER they were FOIA’d!
* * *

“Acting Attorney General’s Financial Disclosures Spark New Fireworks”- http://GovExec.com

Within hours of the long-sought release of his financial disclosure forms, acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker’s past political and business activities prompted transparency groups to pounce with new complaints.

Possible violations of the Hatch Act prohibiting partisan political activity in the federal workplace, incomplete information on the two key forms and apparent changes made by the Justice Department’s ethics office form the basis of new written complaints filed on Wednesday with the Office of Government Ethics, the Office of Special Counsel and the department itself.

The legal moves come as Whitaker’s past lucrative paychecks totaling $1.2 million from a vaguely structured conservative nonprofit transparency group were reported by The Washington Post. And they come as Democrats on Capitol Hill have challenged the legality of Whitaker’s appointment and demanded that he recuse himself from decisions affecting Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections.


More:
https://m.govexec.com/oversight/2018/11/acting-attorney-generals-financial-disclosures-spark-new-fireworks/153002/?oref=m-ge-river