quote:White House counselor Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act on two occasions, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) informed the Trump administration Tuesday.
Appearing in her official capacity, Conway endorsed and advocated against political candidates, the watchdog said, referring its findings to President Trump "for appropriate disciplinary action."
The violations occurred during two television appearances in 2017, one on Fox News's "Fox & Friends," and one on CNN's "New Day."
“While the Hatch Act allows federal employees to express their views about candidates and political issues as private citizens, it restricts employees from using their official government positions for partisan political purposes, including by trying to influence partisan elections,” OSC says in its report.
“Ms. Conway’s statements during the 'Fox & Friends' and 'New Day' interviews impermissibly mixed official government business with political views about candidates in the Alabama special election for U.S. Senate."
The report goes on to state that Conway received "significant training" on the Hatch Act and possible violations. OSC says it gave Conway, a former GOP pollster who served as Trump's campaign manager, the opportunity to respond as part of its report, but she did not.
Uiteraard, maar tegenwoordig moet ik wel de helft van de tijd even snel checken of het een echte tweet is of niet met de hoeveel troep die Trump uit z'n knuistjes weet te krijgen en lolbroeken die een Trumpig verzinsel posten.quote:
Er gaat weer weinig goed.twitter:
Ga jij nu ook al beginnen, ik doe geen idiote uitspraken.quote:Op dinsdag 6 maart 2018 19:37 schreef Euribob het volgende:
Het is nu wel duidelijk dat Martijn geen interesse heeft om zijn mening inhoudelijk met argumenten te verdedigen mensen. Lok hem daarop dan ook niet steeds uit. Zolang hij puur met nieuws komt en geen idiote uitspraken doet die uitlopen op discussie is er weinig aan de hand.
quote:President Donald Trump’s administration has been on a deregulatory bender, particularly when it comes to environmental regulations. As of January, the New York Times counted 67 environmental rules on the chopping block under Trump.
This is not one of Trump’s idiosyncrasies, though. His administration is more ham-handed and flagrant about it, but the antipathy it expresses toward federal regulation falls firmly within the GOP mainstream. Republicans have been complaining about “burdensome” and “job-killing” regulations for so long that their opposition to any particular health, safety, or environmental regulation is now just taken for granted.
For instance, why would the Environmental Protection Agency close a program investigating the effects of toxins on children’s health? Is there some evidence that the money is wasted or poorly spent? Why would the EPA allow more unregulated disposal of toxic coal ash? Don’t people in coal regions deserve clean air and water? Is there any reason to think coal ash is currently well-regulated?
These questions barely come up anymore. Republicans oppose regulations because they are regulations; it’s become reflexive, both for the party and for the media the covers them.
As it happens, though, we know something about the costs and benefits of federal regulations. In fact, Trump’s own administration, specifically the (nonpartisan, at least for now) White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), just released its annual report on that very subject. (Hat tip to E&E.)
The report was released late on a Friday, with Congress out of session and multiple Trump scandals dominating the headlines. A cynical observer might conclude that the administration wanted the report to go unnoticed.
Why might that be? Well, in a nutshell, it shows that the GOP is wrong about regulations as a general matter and wrong about Obama’s regulations specifically. Those regulations had benefits far in excess of their costs, and they had no discernible effect on jobs or economic growth.SPOILEROm spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.The “job-killing” thing is also nonsense
Okay, environmental regulations produce enormous health and social benefits, but don’t they kill jobs?
Not really. This is another myth that conservatives have simply repeated with such tenacity that no one bothers to scrutinize it anymore.
The OMB report has a long section looking into the employment effects of environmental regulations, assessing several studies and literature reviews. Mostly it is devoted to explaining how complex and vexed such analysis is. Jobs may be eliminated in one place/industry and created in another. Jobs may be eliminated in the short term but a larger number created in the long term. Effects on employment must be disentangled from contemporaneous social and economic trends, many of which have much larger effects. And so on.
The conclusion — which is in keeping with the broader literature, as I described in this post — is that there may be local and temporary employment effects from environmental regulations, either positive or negative, but at the aggregate national level, such regulations simply aren’t a significant factor in employment. Their effects are lost amid the noise of demographic shifts and macroeconomic drivers.
They don’t “kill jobs.” From the perspective of the overall economy, they don’t do much of anything to jobs, other than shift them from certain regions/industries to others. As it happens, those shifts are often unfavorable to GOP constituencies, but that’s not a license to, you know, lie about them.
There is no coherent policy justification for Trump’s deregulatory frenzy
If the GOP wants to explicitly align itself behind the interests of particular polluting businesses and against the broader public interest, well, it can. If it doesn’t think the costs to industry of reducing pollution are worth much larger benefits to public health, it can say so. If it wants to transfer wealth back from the public to industrialists by reversing all of Obama’s rules, that is its right as the party in power.
But GOP lawmakers shouldn’t be allowed to simply burp up the words “burdensome” and “job-killing” and move on. The OMB finds no evidence that federal regulations have any noticeable impact on aggregate national employment or economic growth. There is evidence that they produce public benefits well in excess of their costs.
If EPA head Scott Pruitt wants to say that defending children from toxics or rural communities from coal ash pollution is burdensome, he ought to offer some numbers, or evidence, or ... something. Goofy homilies are not enough. (His latest claim is that the Bible recommends the deregulatory agenda.)Believing in the inherent costliness and ineffectiveness of federal regulation is not a religious matter. It’s not an article of faith. It’s an empirical assertion, an argument, and the available evidence indicates that it is incorrect.twitter:
It is certainly not a belief to which journalists owe any particular deference.
Until Trump’s administration makes a case that its own OMB and agencies are wrong — not just by a little, but by tens of billions of dollars — the presumption of every journalist and politico in Washington should be that there is no coherent policy rationale for Trump’s deregulatory agenda.
It is, like his health, tax, and infrastructure initiatives, simply the polar opposite of populism: the targeted transfer of wealth to the already wealthy, at the public’s expense.
Zodra het hier wat minder hard sneeuwt.quote:
Ga ik zeker volgenquote:Op dinsdag 6 maart 2018 19:41 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Voor wie interesse heeft valt de uitslag van de Texaanse primaries hier live te volgen:
De democratische primary in het zevende district is nog wel interessant. Het is een district dat bij de presidentsverkiezingen in 2016 naar de Democraten ging, terwijl de zetel in het huis al een jaar of veertig naar de Republikeinen gaat. Ook doet Laura Moser er mee, tegen die de Democratische partij zelf min of meer campagne heeft gevoerd.
quote:On Dec. 19, 2017, a former staffer for Sen. John McCain named David Kramer testified before the House intelligence committee behind closed doors. He’d played a role in bringing the salacious and unverified Steele dossier to the FBI’s attention, and members peppered him with questions about it.
Then something unusual happened. Word of Kramer's testimony got out—to the lawyer of another witness.
The following, based on conversations with multiple sources familiar with the matter, illuminates the extraordinary breakdown of trust between committee investigators and the witnesses they call. It also suggests that some people working on the committee investigation may be trying to covertly assist one of the president’s closest allies—when the president’s inner circle is ostensibly a focus of their probe.
A few days after Kramer’s testimony, his lawyer, Larry Robbins, got a strange call. The call was from Stephen Ryan, a lawyer who represents Trump’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen. Cohen is facing scrutiny from Special Counsel Robert Mueller and congressional investigators regarding potential coordination between Trump’s team and the Kremlin. He featured prominently in the Steele dossier—the document that Kramer handled—and is currently suing Buzzfeed for publishing it.
Ryan told Robbins he reached out because someone from the House told him that Robbins’ client, Kramer, had information about the Steele dossier that could help Cohen.
Robbins declined to help. Ryan then asked Robbins not to tell the House intelligence committee about their conversation.
Robbins told the committee anyway. CNN reported in February that Robbins wrote a letter to the committee complaining about leaks to another client’s lawyer. The Daily Beast can now confirm that this letter was regarding Stephen Ryan and Michael Cohen.Special counsel has examined episodes involving Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime lawyerSPOILERquote:Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has requested documents and interviewed witnesses about incidents involving Michael Cohen, the longtime lawyer for President Trump whose wide-ranging portfolio has given him a unique vantage point into Trump’s business, campaign and political activities.
There is no indication that Cohen is a subject or target of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But the scrutiny of his interactions is another sign of the far-reaching nature of the special-counsel probe, which is examining members of the president’s inner circle and aspects of Trump’s past business outreach to Russia.
As one of Trump’s closest advisers, Cohen played a role in at least two episodes involving Russian interests that have drawn Mueller’s attention, according to several people familiar with document subpoenas and witness interviews.
One area of focus has been negotiations Cohen undertook during the campaign to help the Trump Organization build a tower in Moscow. Cohen brought Trump a letter of intent in October 2015 from a Russian developer to build a Moscow project. Later, he sent an email to Russian President Vladi≠mir Putin’s chief spokesman seeking help to advance the stalled project. He said he did not recall receiving a response.
Another area that Mueller’s team has explored is a Russia-friendly peace proposal for Ukraine that was delivered to Cohen by an Ukrainian lawmaker one week after Trump took office, the people said.
Cohen is also among nine Trump associates whose communications with former Trump aide Sam Nunberg are being sought by the special counsel, according to a grand jury subpoena sent to Nunberg last week.
Cohen is the only individual on the list who never worked for Trump’s campaign or the White House — and the only one still working for the president.SPOILER“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”— Bertrand Russell
Devin Nunes mag ook op zoek naar een oranje pyjama.quote:Op dinsdag 6 maart 2018 21:29 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Received Inside Info From Russia Probe
Closed-door testimony before the House Russia probe is supposed to stay behind closed doors. Somehow, it got into the hands of another witness—and key Trump confidante—instead.
Special counsel has examined episodes involving Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime lawyer
Die hele kliek is dronken van de macht geworden. Advocaten, simpele senatoren.... allemaal op de trump-train. Helaas hebben ze op de verkeerde gegokt en zal het jailtime worden. Mueller pakt het bij de wortels aan.quote: