Connect with us

White House

Trump’s First Oval Office Address Filled with False Claims, Conway Keeps Repeating Them Anyway

Published

on

WASHINGTON, January 9, 2019 — As the second-longest government shutdown in American history enters its third week, President Trump on Tuesday attempted to galvanize public support for his unpopular proposal to build a wall at the country’s southern border with a televised, prime-time address to the nation.

After the broadcast networks broke into their regularly-scheduled programming, the president appeared on screen shortly after 9 p.m. to address his fellow Americans about what he called “a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border,” caused by “thousands of illegal immigrants trying to enter our country.”

Trump spoke while sitting at the Resolute desk, behind which past presidents have delivered televised remarks at pivotal moments in history. These include John F. Kennedy’s warning to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Lyndon Johnson’s declining to seek a second full term, and Richard Nixon’s announcing his resignation amidst the turmoil of Watergate, Gerald Ford’s putting an end to the “long national nightmare” by pardoning Nixon days later, Ronald Reagan’s consoling Americans after Challenger disaster, and George W. Bush’s comforting and reassuring a traumatized nation after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Unlike those singular examples of presidential oratory, Trump’s ten-minute-long speech broke no new ground.

Mischaracterizations and falsehoods began almost immediately, with the president’s claim that Customs and Border Protection officers encounter “thousands of illegal immigrants trying to enter the country each day.”

The president then attempted to draw a line from the number of aliens — legal and otherwise — arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to a claimed epidemic of violent crime resulting from the lack of a physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country, and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t act right now,” he said.

Trump also attempted to tie current immigration and border security policies to the nationwide opioid epidemic by repeating his claim that the lack of a border wall has turned the southern border into “a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl.”

Trump has frequently suggested that the fentanyl responsible for so many overdose deaths is brought into the United States from Mexico despite the fact that the vast majority of fentanyl sold on American streets comes from Chinese manufacturers and makes its way to the U.S. through the mail or through ports of entry.

Numerous studies have found that immigrants, regardless of status, commit crimes at far lower rates than native-born Americans. Moreover, most drug smuggling — and drug seizures by Customs and Border Protection officers — takes places at ports of entry.

While Trump’s use of the phrase “illegal immigration” brings to mind the image of men and women furtively crossing the border by evading border patrol officers, administration officials openly admit that the number of actual illegal immigrants caught while attempting to cross the border has been on the decline for years. In fact, it is the lowest it has been in decades.

Most people who are residing in the United States illegally came here not through a furtive dash through the desert, but through a passport line on a tourist visa.

Trump also invoked the scourge of human smugglers known as “coyotes” while claiming that 20,000 children “were illegally brought into the country” last month. But as the children in question were granted legal status while their asylum claims are pending, this claim falls flat.

Asked why the president continues to deliberately mischaracterize persons exercising the right to claim asylum in the U.S. as “illegal immigrants,” Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway said Wednesday that such a distinction was nothing more than “semantics” because “not everyone who presents a claim of fear has a credible claim of fear.”

Conway complained that under current law, families seeking asylum are required to be released into the United States during the pendency of their claims.

When it was pointed out to Conway that the asylum process is a legal method of immigrating to the United States, she told reporters that “that’s not true” because Mexico is a “safe third country” from which immigrants could apply for asylum. “Under the law, they could certainly stay there while their claims are being processed.”.

While the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act bars asylum to aliens who can be returned to a “safe third country,” the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a bilateral or multilateral agreement to be in place between the United States and that country before the 1996 law can be invoked to deny anyone asylum.

The U.S. has a “safe third country” agreement with Canada, but no such agreement exists between the U.S. and Mexico.

When pressed further, Conway again tried to deny that the asylum process is a legal one, telling BeltwayBreakfast: “As a woman, as a mother, I don’t want these kids raped, trafficked, getting into drugs. I care about the kids on that side on the border, I care about kids on this side of the border, and I think it’s high time that people rise above the partisanship and agree on that very basic point,” she said.

print

Andrew Feinberg covers the White House, Capitol Hill, and anything else you can think of for BeltwayBreakfast.com and BroadbandBreakfast.com. Andrew has reported on policy and politics in the nation's capital since 2007, and his writing has appeared in publications like The Hill, Politico, Communications Daily, Silicon Angle, and Washington Business Journal. He has also appeared on both daytime and prime radio and television news programs on NPR, Sirius-XM, CNN, MSNBC, ABC (Australia), Al Jazeera, NBC Digital, Voice of America, TV Rain (Russia) and CBS News. Andrew wishes he could say he lives in Washington, DC with his dog, but unfortunately, he lives in a no-dogs building in suburban Maryland.

Ethics Are For Little People

Kellyanne Conway’s Hatch Act Defense Doesn’t Hold Water, Experts Say

As the House prepares for a hearing on her and other Trump administration officials’ Hatch Act violations, ethics experts say Conway’s defense is without merit.

Published

on

Kellyanne Conway addresses reporters outside the West Wing on June 24, 2019 (Andrew Feinberg / Breakfast Media)

WASHINGTON, June 24, 2019 — Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway says a federal ethics law prohibiting government employees from using their position for partisan activities doesn’t apply to her. Ethics experts say she’s wrong.

The President’s close adviser and former campaign manager found herself in hot water early this month after the Office of Special Counsel -recommended she be fired for violating the 80-year-old ethics law multiple times. The office is an independent agency responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act’s prohibitions against partisan activity by federal workers.

The OSC is not a part of the Justice Department, and its activities are unrelated to the high-profile probe conducted by the Special Counsel’s Office that had been led by Robert Mueller.

While the White House has taken no action against her, the OSC’s report has attracted the attention of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and its chairman, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. On Friday, Cummings’ office requested Conway’s presence at a Thursday hearing on Hatch Act compliance under the Trump administration.

If Conway follows the usual Trump administration practice of ignoring requests for administration officials to testify before Democratic-led House committees, Cummings plans to have committee members vote to authorize a subpoena for her testimony.

One person who will be testifying, however, is Special Counsel Henry Kerner, a Trump appointee who, according to prepared testimony released by the House Oversight Committee, plans to harshly criticize Conway’s conduct.

“As stated in OSC’s 2019 report to the President, Ms. Conway’s egregious and repeated Hatch Act violations, combined with her unrepentant attitude, are unacceptable from any federal employee, let alone one in such a prominent position,” Kerner is expected to say Wednesday. “Her conduct hurts both federal employees, who may believe that senior officials can act with complete disregard for the Hatch Act, and the American people, who may question the nonpartisan operation of their government.”

According to the OSC’s report, Conway “violated the Hatch Act during media appearances” by making derogatory statements about Democratic presidential candidates while she was speaking in her official capacity as Counselor to the President, and by retweeting Trump campaign messages on the same Twitter account she uses for official business.

The OSC report also noted that Conway had previously been found to have violated the law when she endorsed Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore during a 2018 special election, and that she “scoffed at her responsibilities under the Hatch Act and ridiculed its enforcement” during a May 29 media availability, when she responded to questions about her past Hatch Act violations by asserting, “Let me know when the jail sentence starts.'”

“Her defiant attitude is inimical to the law, and her continued pattern of misconduct is unacceptable,” the report said.

Conway is defiant in a Fox News appearance

During a Monday appearance on Fox News, a defiant Conway hit back against the OSC’s findings by claiming that it isn’t clear that the law applies to her and other senior White House aides. She also accused the Office of Special Counsel of doing the bidding of “left-wing” groups who “want to put a big roll of masking tape over [her] mouth” and restrict her First Amendment rights.

Conway later took to Twitter to promote a memorandum by the White House Counsel’s office, which accused OSC of using an “overbroad and unsupported interpretation of the Hatch Act” that “risks violating Ms. Conway’s First Amendment rights and chills the free speech of all government employees.”

But ethics law experts say the arguments put forth by Conway and the White House Counsel don’t hold water.

According to Campaign Legal Center Ethics Counsel Delaney Marsco, Conway’s defense fails when it comes to both the facts and the law.

“The Hatch Act specifically says that any individual other than the president or vice president employed or holding office in an executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office is covered by the Hatch Act,” Marsco said in an interview with Breakfast Media. She added that the Office of Special Counsel has repeatedly said so “multiple times.”

Additionally, Marsco noted that the Supreme Court had two chances to say that the Hatch Act’s restrictions violate government workers’ First Amendment rights, and has declined to do so both times — first in 1947, and again in 1973.

Marsco said the argument Conway and the White House Counsel are putting forth by suggesting that her right to free speech is being violated shows “a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and the power that comes with being a federal employee.”

“The Hatch Act contemplates that being a member of the federal government gives you power, and you should not be able to use the power and influence you have as a federal government employee to influence the results of an election,” she said, adding that Conway’s conduct “undermines the faith the public has in the federal government.”

Conway would have an easy fix to avoid violating the Hatch Act on Twitter

She added that Conway could have avoided violating the Hatch Act on Twitter if she’d used a separate Twitter account in her official capacity as Counselor to the President. Her failure to do so, Marsco said, “blurs the lines” between what Conway might say on her own time and what she says in her role as a spokesperson for President Trump.

Nick Schwellenbach, a former Office of Special Counsel staffer and the current director of investigations at the Project on Government Oversight, said Conway’s claim that her criticism of candidates’ policy preferences doesn’t violate the law “mischaracterizes the full scope of what the Hatch Act prohibits.”

“[Conway] said [the Hatch Act] only prohibits talking about individual candidates, and that’s just not true,” Schwellenbach said in a phone interview with Breakfast Media.

“Political activity is not just saying, ‘hey, vote for this candidate, vote against this candidate, or vote against that one.’ It can be ‘vote for this party or support Republicans or support Democrats because of their policies,'” he said.

“You can do that on your free time as an individual, but if you’re the spokesperson for the White House, you can’t do that.”

Schwellenbach said the provision of the Hatch Act cited by Conway and the White House Counsel to support their argument that the law doesn’t apply to high-ranking White House officials doesn’t exonerate her, either.

That provision, Schwellenbach said, is limited in scope and meant to cover a limited set of activities, such as fundraising phone calls by a White House official who also holds positions within an incumbent president’s campaign.

“It’s about reimbursement,” he said. “Not going on TV.”

A third Hatch Act expert, Washington attorney Bradley Moss, said Conway’s claim that she is not covered by the Hatch Act is entirely without merit, and shows how uninterested the Trump administration is in complying with any of the ethical or legal obligations adhered to by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

“For generations, senior White House advisors have managed to find a way to comply with the requirements of the Hatch Act, or made adjustments to their practices if isolated violations were identified,” said Moss, a partner with the law firm of Mark S. Zaid, P.C. whose practice encompasses federal employment law matters.

“Kellyanne Conway’s outright disregard for the Hatch Act is consistent with this Administration’s general disinterest in complying with a range of ethical restrictions regarding which we have been accustomed to public officials treating with respect.”

Continue Reading

Ethics Are For Little People

White House Adviser Kellyanne Conway Should Be Fired For Repeated Ethics Violations, Watchdog Agency Says

Published

on

WASHINGTON, June 13, 2019 — The independent agency responsible for ensuring compliance with the Hatch Act has recommended that Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway be fired for repeated violations of that law.

The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity while in federal employment.

Conway, the agency said, “violated the Hatch Act on numerous occasions by disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media.”

“Given that Ms. Conway is a repeat offender and has shown disregard for the law, OSC recommends that she be removed from federal service.”

As Conway’s supervisor, President Donald Trump is ultimately responsible for deciding whether she will be disciplined for violating a well-known law that has been on the books since 1939. But he did not take any action when she was found to have previously violated the same law.

In a statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Steven Groves hit back at the agency’s “unprecedented actions” against Conway, calling them “deeply flawed” and a [violation of] her constitutional rights to free speech and due process.”

Groves added that OSC’s decision appeared to be influenced by “media pressure and liberal organizations.”

“Perhaps OSC should be mindful of its own mandate to act in a fair, impartial, non-political manner, and not misinterpret or weaponize the Hatch Act.”

This is a developing story, check back for details.

Continue Reading

Check Your Privilege

As Dems Probe Whether Census Is Being Rigged Against Minorities, Trump Claims Executive Privilege Over Commerce Department Docs

Published

on

House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., wields the gavel during a 2019 hearing

WASHINGTON, June 12, 2019 — President Trump will invoke executive privilege to keep the House Oversight Committee from viewing documents that could shed light on whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census was motivated by racial or political animus, a Commerce Department official said Wednesday.

In a letter to House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings, Commerce Department Legislative Affairs Director Charles Kolo Rathburn said Cummings’ decision to go ahead with a vote to hold Ross in contempt forced Trump’s hand.

“It is disappointing that you have rejected the Department of Commerce’s request to delay the vote of the Committee on Oversight and Reform on a contempt finding against the Secretary this morning. By doing so, you have abandoned the accommodation process with respect to the Committee’s January 8, 2019 request for documents and information and April 2, 2019 subpoena for documents concerning the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census,” said Rathburn, a political appointee who is performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary [of Commerce] for Legislative Affairs because President Trump has not nominated anyone to fill the Senate-confirmed position.”

“Accordingly, I hereby advise you that the President has asserted executive privilege over the specific subset of the documents identified by the Committee in its June 3, 2019 letter — documents that are clearly protected from disclosure by the deliberative process, attorney-client communications, or attorney work product components of executive privilege.”

Additionally, Rathburn said Trump will use the privilege to withhold all documents the committee had subpoenaed on April 2 as part of its investigation into whether the his administration’s plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census was an attempt to reduce the counted population of Democratic-leaning minority groups.

The decennial census, a requirement laid out in Article I, Section II of the Constitution, is required in order to determine how many seats in the House of Representatives — and electoral votes — will be allocated to each state.

Because the Constitution requires the census to count “the whole number of persons in each state,” most experts say a question on citizenship — a subject which the census has not asked about in more than half a century — is unnecessary.

While the Commerce Department says adding the question is necessary — even without performing the statistical testing required by law — to better enforce the Voting Rights Act, experts also say adding such a question would result in fewer responses from Latino households in which some members are undocumented.

After a number of states sued the Trump administration in hopes of blocking Ross from adding a question that could potentially cause them to lose representation in Congress, a district court judge found the Commerce Department to have violated the Administrative Procedure Act by acting in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner when deciding whether to add the question.

The judge’s detailed finding of fact did not address whether the Trump administration’s decision to add the question was motivated by a desire to hurt Democrats or dilute minority representation, and the administration’s appeal is currently before the Supreme Court.

But the case was upended last month after the progressive advocacy group Common Cause obtained a cache of documents from the daughter of a deceased GOP redistricting expert.

Those documents reveal that the expert, Thomas Hofeller, had corresponded with Commerce Department officials and other top Republicans about how the GOP could gain an advantage from the addition of a citizenship question to the census.

As a result, members of Cummings’ committee are hoping to look into whether Ross or other administration officials committed perjury when testifying before Congress or as part of the lawsuit over the citizenship question.

While the President customarily has broad latitude when claiming executive privilege — meant to protect presidential communications so as to give the chief executive the benefit of candid advice — courts have placed some restrictions on its uses.

In 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court held in United States v. Nixon that a president could not use a claim of executive privilege to defy a judicial subpoena.

But one executive privilege expert — University of Virginia law professor Saikrishna Prakash — cautioned that the Nixon ruling does not apply to a Congressional subpoena.

“[The] Nixon [case]…was…an actual prosecution as opposed to Congress being involved, and the court…set aside the question of whether [executive] privilege ought to apply or how it would apply to Congress,” said Prakash, a Senior Fellow at UVA’s Miller Center.

“The [Supreme] Court has never said how the executive privilege applies to Congress if it does apply to Congress, but the lower courts seem to think that it does.”

Prakash predicted that the Trump administration’s invocation of executive privilege will be “the first step in a complicated dance” which will most likely end with some sort of negotiated settlement between the administration and Congress.

But if the White House asks the judicial branch to declare that the President can use executive privilege to block Congressional investigations, Prakash said it’s possible that a court would find that Congress’ interest in determining whether members of the executive branch broke the law to be sufficient enough to pierce the veil the administration hopes to draw around its actions.

“One could always say, ‘we’re worried about the possible, uh, possible, uh, uh, possible crimes by executive branch officials and therefore we need this information.’ If that’s enough to overcome the privilege, you might understand that as saying that, in effect, there is no privilege vis-a-vis Congress.”

“That might very well be the right answer, but it’s not an answer that the courts have given us yet,” he said, adding that House Democrats will most likely use such an argument if they try to enforce their subpoena in court.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2018 Breakfast Media LLC Send tips, advertiser/sponsor inquiries, and press releases to press(at)beltwaybreakfast.com.