Kellyanne Conway should be removed from WH for violating federal law: Office of Special Counsel

[Lone Clone]

You didn't realize an advisor to the president (not named Ivanka) was paid with tax money? Interesting.

Nope. My brain broke. To be brutally honest, Tar, I did exactly what I've frequently admonished you and Joe for doing. I posted without fully reading and understanding the issue I thought I was addressing. As a consequence, I had to admit I was wrong. Which is the way my situation differs from yours.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Nope. My brain broke. To be brutally honest, Tar, I did exactly what I've frequently admonished you and Joe for doing. I posted without fully reading and understanding the issue I thought I was addressing. As a consequence, I had to admit I was wrong. Which is the way my situation differs from yours.

Well, except I was right. Another way we differ.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yes, she is going to ride the gravy train as long as she can and then move on. For her, it is all about the money. I believe her and George concocted their good cop, bad cop relationship so that they could both benefit. If a Democrat were president, I bet she would defend them just as much as she defends Trump (for the right money, of course).

I disagree. I think for her, it’s all about the fetuses.

 

[Lone Clone]

Well, except I was right. Another way we differ.

Always, right? My point, precisely.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Always, right? My point, precisely.

Oh, not always. Just where you're concerned. As in this thread where your reflexive defense of all things Trump led you to forget that less than two years ago you understood that Conway WAS covered by the Hatch Act and that it's reach was widespread. Instead, in this thread, you asserted that you weren't aware of this fact and doubted she was either despite acknowledging that well over a year ago she had been made aware. Feel free to claim "brain fart". You should do that a lot. Or you could stop trying to self-justify an idiotic vote for a reprehensible human being by defending him and his minions at every drop of the hat.

 

[Lone Clone]

Oh, not always. Just where you're concerned. As in this thread where your reflexive defense of all things Trump led you to forget that less than two years ago you understood that Conway WAS covered by the Hatch Act and that it's reach was widespread. Instead, in this thread, you asserted that you weren't aware of this fact and doubted she was either despite acknowledging that well over a year ago she had been made aware. Feel free to claim "brain fart". You should do that a lot. Or you could stop trying to self-justify an idiotic vote for a reprehensible human being by defending him and his minions at every drop of the hat.

Missed your meds again. You gotta watch that.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Missed your meds again. You gotta watch that.

Your fall back when your..."inconsistencies"...are pointed out. A year and a half ago you absolutely understood that Conway was covered. You absolutely understood the wide scope of the Hatch Act. Here you make that claim that you were unaware that it applied to her and try to give her an out - as is your knee-jerk practice with all things Trumpian - by claiming you doubted she knew it.

Really, your only recourse now is to try to deflect. You should never have come back to try to defend the indefensible. This thread would be on page three by now.

 

[Lone Clone]

Your fall back when your..."inconsistencies"...are pointed out. A year and a half ago you absolutely understood that Conway was covered. You absolutely understood the wide scope of the Hatch Act. Here you make that claim that you were unaware that it applied to her and try to give her an out - as is your knee-jerk practice with all things Trumpian - by claiming you doubted she knew it.

Really, your only recourse now is to try to deflect. You should never have come back to try to defend the indefensible. This thread would be on page three by now.

WTF are you talking about? I said I was wrong. I said I made a mistake. I explained why I made the mistake.

And how does me -- consistently -- saying people who broke the law should face the consequences translate in your mind to defending Trump? You are so off the rails, like many other Trump-haters, that you see anything other than a no-holds-barred attack on him as defending him.

I WILL defend him if it seems warranted, and I have done so. But the idea I defend him on everything is simply ludicrous, and says more about the state of your mind than it does about anything else. It just doesn't work right where Trump is concerned.

 

[lucas80]

If there is no punishment for Conway, then I shudder to think what will happen in 2020. Trump will demand cabinet level people make political statements in support of him. Why not? He doesn't care about rules. He never has.
And, people will show up on HROT to say he didn't know it was illegal. Kelly Ann didn't know it was illegal. Mike Pompeo didn't know it was illegal. But, you know, so what? There is no norm or rule that will not be broken in order to re-elect Trump.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

WTF are you talking about? I said I was wrong. I said I made a mistake. I explained why I made the mistake.

And how does me -- consistently -- saying people who broke the law should face the consequences translate in your mind to defending Trump? You are so off the rails, like many other Trump-haters, that you see anything other than a no-holds-barred attack on him as defending him.

I WILL defend him if it seems warranted, and I have done so. But the idea I defend him on everything is simply ludicrous, and says more about the state of your mind than it does about anything else. It just doesn't work right where Trump is concerned.

LOL...your admission was in respect to Conway.And it's puzzling.

Part of what I said appears to be wrong. I hadn't realized she was covered under the Hatch Act, and I assumed that if she knew what she was doing was illegal, she wouldn't do it. Incorrect assumption, apparently.

You're still trying to claim right here that you were unaware she was covered which is totally at odds with your demonstrated understanding that she was in 2017. Again...your knee-jerk response is to rush in and post some bullshit without regard to what you know or perhaps even believe. You knew in 2017 that Conway WAS covered and you knew that she was already being called out - in 2017 - for violations of the Hatch Act. To come here today and make the claim that you didn't know this is....odd?

What does it say about the state of your mind that you can't remember what you absolutely knew a year and a half ago?

 

[funksouljon]

And while we're at it, Kush has to go, too. He was originally denied clearance. We should go back to that at yank his away. Gaining clearance simply because you are the president's Son in Law should not be a thing.

But we don't know for sure who forced his clearance approval through. nudge nudge wink wink.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-to-grant-kushner-security-clearance-ny-times

Easy fix would be to just pull it, but we know that won't happen.

 

[Lone Clone]

LOL...your admission was in respect to Conway.And it's puzzling.


You're still trying to claim right here that you were unaware she was covered which is totally at odds with your demonstrated understanding that she was in 2017. Again...your knee-jerk response is to rush in and post some bullshit without regard to what you know or perhaps even believe. You knew in 2017 that Conway WAS covered and you knew that she was already being called out - in 2017 - for violations of the Hatch Act. To come here today and make the claim that you didn't know this is....odd?

What does it say about the state of your mind that you can't remember what you absolutely knew a year and a half ago?

You should read my posts, Tar. But I know that when you get into one of these moods, you just don't/can't do it. I shouldn't expect anything different.

 

[ft254]

The Hatch Act exempts Presidential Advisors from what I can tell. Is she not considered a Presidential Advisor?

Entering this conversation late, but you are questioning the OSC's ability to interpret the law?

 

[DFSNOLE]

Entering this conversation late, but you are questioning the OSC's ability to interpret the law?

Obviously, yes.

 

[Joes Place]

Obviously, yes.

Only when it applies to other MAGAts, though.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You should read my posts, Tar. But I know that when you get into one of these moods, you just don't/can't do it. I shouldn't expect anything different.

I did. The post from a 2017 thread about Conway violating the Hatch Act:

LOL....if the Hatch Act were actually enforced, there would be a lot of empty offices in Washington. Which wouldn't be a bad thing. Lock her up!

And the post from this thread where you "forgot" knowing she had been previously made aware of her alleged violations and forgot that you apparently knew the Hatch Act applied to Conway.

She's certainly guilty of making political statements. It never occurred to me -- and apparently to her, either -- that it was illegal or improper to do that. I assume we will now see a flurry of activity as Republicans find people who have done similar things in Democratic presidencies.

Pass the popping corn.

So just for the record...it's your contention that you completely forgot that this took place in November of 2017...is that right?

 

[doughuddl2]

Please show the instance where Conway "acknowledged the mistake that he (she) made,” “He (She) owned up to it, and he’s (she's) taken the necessary steps to prevent it from happening again."

You all are a bunch of weasels. Lol. I would expect nothing less from your kind.

"I'm sorry" absolves all libs from a crime.

Congrats on joining the Trump clan of deplorables.

 

[DFSNOLE]

You all are a bunch of weasels. Lol. I would expect nothing less from your kind.

So, when you can't give the requested information, you start name calling. I'll take that as a win.

 

[Lone Clone]

I did. The post from a 2017 thread about Conway violating the Hatch Act:


And the post from this thread where you "forgot" knowing she had been previously made aware of her alleged violations and forgot that you apparently knew the Hatch Act applied to Conway.

So just for the record...it's your contention that you completely forgot that this took place in November of 2017...is that right?

So you DID finally read my post, sorta, at least.

I guess this was too subtle for you to grasp:

I never gave it any thought. If I had, I might have remembered the November 2017 post (although I doubt it).

And then I made it even worse by posting this terribly confusing, complicated statement:

I posted without fully reading and understanding the issue I thought I was addressing. As a consequence, I had to admit I was wrong.

I can understand why you don't read my posts. They're just so damned complex.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So you DID finally read my post, sorta, at least.

I guess this was too subtle for you to grasp:

I never gave it any thought. If I had, I might have remembered the November 2017 post (although I doubt it).

And then I made it even worse by posting this terribly confusing, complicated statement:

I posted without fully reading and understanding the issue I thought I was addressing. As a consequence, I had to admit I was wrong.

I can understand why you don't read my posts. They're just so damned complex.

I read that. I posted this:

As in this thread where your reflexive defense of all things Trump led you to forget that less than two years ago you understood that Conway WAS covered by the Hatch Act and that it's reach was widespread.

You responded with that cute little "missed your meds" comeback.

You should stop and think really hard before you jump in to defend Trump or one of his appointees again. Or anything he says. Or does. Maybe do a search of your past posts to make sure you're being consistent. Maybe jog your memory about things you knew 18 months ago that you've since "forgotten".

 

[doughuddl2]

So, when you can't give the requested information, you start name calling. I'll take that as a win.

I have nothing else you need info from me. Showed Obama and Trump both had people accused of breaking the Hatch Act. Your liberal bias has exonerated your side because they said they were sorry. Congrats on your win, just like Hillary's proclaimed win in 2016 you both can celebrate winning nothing.

 

[DFSNOLE]

I have nothing else you need info from me. Showed Obama and Trump both had people accused of breaking the Hatch Act. Your liberal bias has exonerated your side because they said they were sorry. Congrats on your win, just like Hillary's proclaimed win in 2016 you both can celebrate winning nothing.

First and foremost, he admitted his error which is something no one in the current administration has ever done and that level of arrogance has been passed along to his disciples.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I have nothing else you need info from me. Showed Obama and Trump both had people accused of breaking the Hatch Act. Your liberal bias has exonerated your side because they said they were sorry.

LOL...that's more than they were required to do. That you refuse to acknowledge that simple fact demonstrates your wingnut views. and a strong penchant for non-applicable whataboutism.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

"I'm sorry" absolves all libs from a crime.

Please show the instance where Conway "acknowledged the mistake that he (she) made,” “He (She) owned up to it, and he’s (she's) taken the necessary steps to prevent it from happening again."

 

[Lone Clone]

I read that. I posted this:

You responded with that cute little "missed your meds" comeback.

You should stop and think really hard before you jump in to defend Trump or one of his appointees again. Or anything he says. Or does. Maybe do a search of your past posts to make sure you're being consistent. Maybe jog your memory about things you knew 18 months ago that you've since "forgotten".

Maybe you should think before you interpret everything as a "defense"

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Maybe you should think before you interpret everything as a "defense"

Maybe you should stop defending. She wasn't aware she was violating the Hatch Act? Based on....nothing. And at total odds with what you knew a year and a half ago.

 

[Lone Clone]

Maybe you should stop defending. She wasn't aware she was violating the Hatch Act? Based on....nothing. And at total odds with what you knew a year and a half ago.

When you get into one of these snits, there's just no point trying to treat you like an adult, is there? I should know better by now. Maybe my lack of recognition is part of that age-related brain failure you cite regularly. I will try to be more perceptive in the future, believe me.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

When you get into one of these snits, there's just no point trying to treat you like an adult, is there? I should know better by now. Maybe my lack of recognition is part of that age-related brain failure you cite regularly. I will try to be more perceptive in the future, believe me.

Well...there you go again. You were treated like an adult. An adult who posted something that was categorically, verifiably wrong. Even after your prior post from late 2017 was linked indicating that you were fully aware that Conway was covered, you tried to slip this by:

I hadn't realized she was covered under the Hatch Act,

Then, remarkably, posted this snarky response:

They aren't interested in what you actually write.

Apparently you aren't particularly interested in what you actually wrote 18 months ago.

You're verifiably wrong a lot...especially when you reflexively jump in to defend Trump...as is your wont. You were advised to avoid doing that in the future...good advice. Maybe it sunk in this time. Be more perceptive. Good luck in the future.