We will come to order. We want to thank you and the hardworking career experts at the office of special counsel whove spent many months doing a thorough and careful investigation. I understand your recommendation to President Trump that Kellyanne Conway be removed from office was not made with careful consideration. I want to play a clip from a phone interview President Trump did last friday on fox friends responding to ofcs report. Play the clip, please. Youre not going to fire her . No, im not going to fire her. Shes a tremendous spokesperson. Shes been loyal, shes just a great person. I would certainly not think, based on what and saw yesterday, how could you do that . They have tried to take away her speeeech and i think youre entitled to free speech in this country. They just say if youre working for the white house you shouldnt be involved in criticizing other candidates or other politician, and she has. Will you encourage her not to do that Going Forward . Well, but it doesnt work that way because lets say that i think biden was one of the people that she was accused of criticizing, but he criticized me and we then criticized him or she criticized him. And its not shes making a point. Shes trying to make a point, and how could you do this . Basically youd have to take a person off a person wouldnt be able to express themselves and i just dont see it. Now, im going to get a very strong preefibriefing on it, i but it seems to me to be very unfair. Its called freedom of speech. What message does the president s refusal to ms. Conway over the 2 Million People in our federal work force . Thank you, mr. Chairman. From our perspective we follow the statute and under the law we issue the report for a recommendation to the president. It is the pragueerative of the president then to decide what discipline if any to impose. Thats his choice. We respect his choice and the president obviously decided to do whatt he does, and thats consistent with the statute. I mean the hatch act was intended to provide the American People confidence that the government is using tax dollars for the public good and not to influence or fund a political campaign. Is that a fair statement . Yes. If a career Civil Servant violates the hatch act the special counsel can bring an action to discipline the employee. Osc does not have the authority, however, to discipline political appointees, is that correct . Yes, thats correct. For political appointees can write a report and make a recommendation of discipline, but ultimately its up to the president. Correct. On march 6, 2018, you sent President Trump a report that found ms. Conway violated the hatch act on two occasions and that she knew she was breaking the law. Did the president ever send you a response to your report . No, i dont believe so. Are you aware whether President Trump took any action to discipline ms. Conway after your first report . Ms. Conway mentioned in a couple of appearances that she may have been counseled, but we are not aware of any particular discipline, no. Now, white house spokesperson leased a statement to the press in response to your first report and he said this. Kellyanne conway, and i quote, did not advocate for or against the election of any particular candidate. She simply expressed the president s obvious position that he have people in the house and senate who support his agenda, end quote. Was that the kind of response that you would expect to see in the white house . Well, weve had conversations with the white house and we obviously try to work with the white house in order to make sure the hatch act is complied with. And so our h is we will continue to be able to get the white house to agree to comply with the hatch act as part of prohibitions. On june 13, 2019 osc released another report that found ms. Conway broke the law dozens of times. He recommended to the president that he fire and im sure it was not a decision you took lightly. Why did you recommend that the president fire ms. Conway . Because thats a thats a pretty serious felony, wouldnt you agree . Yes, sir, thats the harshest penalty obviously in a civil case like this, we did not take that likely. It was based on the recommendation of the career, it was consistent with the merit system protection or precedent, and its based on the fact weve never had a repeat offender. Wher there were so many violations and ultimately she made a commement where she suggested she didnt feel she was bound by the hatch act. So theres no way to stay in federal employment while she doesnt feel shes obligated to abide by this law. Im wondering if youve got 2 million federal employees and im sure these cases do come up where they might have one violation. I mean, we talk about fairness. I mean, if a person has one or two violations, then we have somebody whos got 25 alleged violations, and basically nothing happens, what does that say to them . I mean, is that fair . Well, mr. Careman, i think from oscs perspective we try to apply the law as fairly as we can. To emphasize what i said in my opener we are going to treat the wellconnected the same as a the little guy. Were going to have one standard. Were not going to have a two tier hatch act enfororcement system. Obviously cases with ordinary federal workers go to the board, and the board sometimes also imposes punishmt different from what we recommend. Sometimes opposing discipline is not something osc does but were going to bring cases fairly and equally. If she was just a regular Civil Servant do you think she should have been disciplined . The professionals who work for me have been doing this for just about 40 years and have said if this were an mspb case removal would be the very likely outcome. Very well. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from north dakota, mr. Armstrong. Mr. Chairman i think its important to note at the outset while the hatch act does not apply to members of congress, its always interesting to hear from my friends on the other side about the blending of political and official when every day we see examples of elected officials using current positions to propel their president ial campaign messages. Having looked through the materials and preparation for this hearing, i cant help but feel the office of special counsels interpretation of the hatch act means President Trumps top advisers must subscribe to the legal and political fiction you can decouple the president s president ial campaign from the elected position. And my interpretation at least appears to be in part bipartisan. Chairman comings even cept a letter to osc in december of last year. And heres a direct statement. Theres no limit that criticizing the policy of a sitting president or any other politician is a violation of the hatch act. Apparentlyly that applies if youre an advisor to this president. But all that aside President Trumps advisers are going to continue to act a as his surrogates. So Going Forward maybe this hearing can help us understand what a senior kouns tool the president is allowed to say on tv or social media without personally offending anyone else in the office. So if were talking about a sitting senator and medicare for all . Is it fair to say i hope Bernie Sanders medicare for all proposal is purely Campaign Rhetoric because if he were to introduce a senate bill people would have to give up the coverage they trust and taxpayers will be on the hook for trillions of dollars. Is that an okay statement . I am not in a position to judge a Statement Like that. The way osc works is we get complaints about statements, theres an investigation open and started. So what if senator warner and plans to cancel Student Loan Debt for 95 of boroughers. Bribing people to vote for could an advisor say senator gillibrand, harris, warren, sanders, booker and klobuchar should get off thehe president i campaign trail and back into the senate . Instead the Senate Minority leader is asking for a full stop in the senate. What if an advisor makes an obvious connection between a policy proposal and a possible political motivation. Is the advisor allowed to highlight the intention of the lawmaker . Senators have introduced a new credit for renters. Im sure introducing legislation that gives more free stuff to people has nothing to do with a president ial campaign. What about if an advisor weighs in on a current position on abortion . Can an advisor say senator gillibrand compared prolife use with even further what if a senator claims to support something while running for office but refuses to actually introduce a bill . Can the president s advisor comment on how the sitting senator is acting in a political and not governmental capacity . Or what about this . Senator gillibrand in a role as senator and not as a candidate for president School Lunch Programs demonstrating a misunderstanding of science. Im sure its a coincidence it happened right around the same time it happen as a campaign speech. But if she wants to check with the former first lady im sure shell find out Rural America doesnt like the senate or white house interfering with School Lunch Program can advisers ask that senator warren introduce the bill that would make same sex couples responsible for are rote roactive tax refund. This demonstrates she is acting in the best interests of her Political Base and not in the best interest of the average citizen. In closing, mr. Chairman, i request unanimous consent to enter into the record the front page of the osc website which as of this morning features a prominent link which states Kellyanne Conway repeatedly violated the hatch act, recommends removal from federal office. The argument this osc is a Political Office holds no water. This has routinely targeted the administration and not even given the objection so ordered. And with that i yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And welcome mr. Kernow. When it comes to my friends and holing the Trump Administration accountable, my lord what happened to the passion of the obama years . Its actually a marvel to behold. But maybe this found an honest man in you, mr. Kernow. Are you a liberal democrat from new yorkrk . No, sir. What are you . Do you mind my asking . Sure, i consider myself a conservative republican. I vote frd Ronald Reagan. It was my first vote for president. Well, it was cool to vote for Ronald Reagan. I came to d. C. In 2011 because i believe in g government. You worked with darrell issa. I did work with darrell issa, yes. Oh, will the horrors ever stop here . So youre not bringing to your job some kind of political bias against this president , is that correct . None, whatsoever. No, im a trump appointee. President trump appointed you . Yes, he did. Oh, my lord. Well, gosh. So presumably being who you are you would be inclined not to violate the law, not to ignore your duties, but youd probably if you could, youd bend over backwards to counsel someone who was in trouble with the law youre in charge of enforcing to kind of write himself, herself, give them a bit of a warning chance so it doesnt have to get to a level it now is. Would that be a fair statement . Well, i wouldnt say bend over backwards. I do believe it is my job in a nonpartisan way to assist the administration in complying with all the laws. Osc enforces whistleblower laws and retaliation. We do have a very robust effort to train meme on the hatch hakt, but it isnt a partisan reason. We have career professionals to do this who are not partisans whatsoever. Right. So so did you verbally counsel ms. Conway, hey youre crossing a line, dont do that. The White House Counsels Office gave numerous trainings, in fact some of our career staff sent over, power points and other training materials on the hatch act and officially for using. Now, your office has issued a report on this, is that correct . Weve issued two reports on this. Have you ever done that before . No, weve never issued two reports on the same person. Never. Never. How old is your office . So 1989 is when we became independent. So 30 years. 30 years. Okay,nd have you received a response to those reports from the subject in question, ms. Conway . Ms. Conway never responded, no. Never responded. In the past the Ranking Member was comparing this case to did those people respond to chastisements from her office verbal or well, there hasnt been a written report like that. Right. I wasnt there and obviously that would go to the we have your testimony earlier in fact one of those people not only responded she issued a maya culpa and issued a response with the unfavorable act in sharp contrast to the case in point. Correct. Could this problem be solved if ms. Conway simply moved the campaign . Absolutely. And was she counseled or advised to do that . We have definitely suggested solutions, not just to move into the campaign but also how to come into compliance with her twitter feed and how to stay within the rules of her media appearance. And this is matter of law . Correct. And shes in violation of the law . Thats correct. And youve definitively determined that, and has the white House Counsel been so informed . Yes. And what is the reaction of the white House Counsel . They sent us an 11page letter and disputed our findings. I see. Well, final thing if i may, are you concerned about the impact of this defiance of the law on the two plus million federal employees who fall within the hatch act . I think its very important to let the federal work force go osc is going to treat everybody equally, were not going to have a two tier hatch a act enforcemt system and were going to do everything in our power to treat everybody the same no matter how wellconnected they mayay or ma not be. Thank you very much and i yield back. I thank the chairman and t t witness for being here today before the committee. I would suggest to my colleague on the other side of t the aisl when heseeking one honest man that everyone on this side of the aisle is somehow dishonest. I know that cant be the case particularly when some of us have broken ranks, for example offering a subpoena with respect to child separation policies. But to suggest were somehow dishonest by saying were seeking to find one honest man because we believe this is charade and a a waist of the ti of the American People i think that is correctional direction to go. With respect to the obama years i would just raise it would be awfully nice if my colleagues on the other side would recognize a president sent a request for 2. 68 million for i. C. E. When the problem we had on our border is nothing like itit is today. And yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to recognize that. It says congressmen issued the hatch act to protect federal employees from political incursion at the workplace based on merit and not political affiliation, is that right . Thats correct. Would you agree President Trump chose ms. Conway based on her partisan political affiliation . That he chose that . Right. I think he chose her because shes effective in policies. Whether candidates or in office, correct . Yes. So you would agree the original tenant of the hatch act was not to keep advisers from advocating for their boss policies or in defense of positions criticizing them. I think the hatch act only exempts two people, the president and Vice President from its reach so ms. Conway is bound by it. Youre saying it would prevent white house advisers from advocating on behalf of their policies . Shes not allowed to use official authority to inject herself in campaign activity. In defense of the president s positions as compared to others criticizing them, can she defend the president s positions. Yes. And is it not true there are two categories employees restricted, and less restricted . Thats correct. So there is in fact two categories. So we do treat people differently depending on what theyre job is and what theyre doing. But the enforcement is not different. But we recognize there are differences . True or false, there are differences . The statute does recognize that. Thank you. Theres a significant gap in my opinion b between political activity. If osc claims certain forms of political speech are permissible under the hatch act, where do we draw the line. Can ms. Conway explain why open borders policy is bad policy . I cant get into a ecic you cant say whether or not she can advocate whether a pacific policy choice is bad policycy. I can say shes allowed to advocate policy choices. Can she explain why a policy not encouraging people to claim asylum when it is overwhelmingly not found to be credible under our laws is bad policy . She can certainly talk about policy, thats correct. Offered up or criticizing the people while those very same democrats who deny the crisis refused to address it and then act they were the heroes for throwing money at it with no plan to deal with it. Can she explain why that is flawed legislation . I just cant really comment on a specific policy. Can she plain why that legislation should be roundly rejected and defeated . Can she criticize the democrats as a group who failed to take the crisis seriously and allowed the crisis to get so bad that people are now dying . I think it gets very close to who the democrats are and once again wait a minute, she cant criticize democrats as a class for failing to do this . She can talk about policy proposals. Whether she starts to criticize people running for office so if youre a member of congress and were perpetually running for office for two years, a member of the white house staff cant criticize a member of this body for roundly unserious policy suggestions and make that clear to the American People that should not be followed and that that is bad policy . No, theres a couple of other rules. First of all, even though you run every two years the president declare said he got elected and hes going to be run again. Theres a