WEBVTT - Painter on Whether Ben Carson Violated Hatch Act (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.880
<v Speaker 1>Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson spoke at President

0:00:03.880 --> 0:00:07.600
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump's rally Tuesday night, talking about his experience growing

0:00:07.680 --> 0:00:10.360
<v Speaker 1>up and telling the crowd that life is too short

0:00:10.440 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 1>for people to let differences divide them. Carson speech isn't

0:00:14.480 --> 0:00:18.279
<v Speaker 1>raising questions. It's this introduction of him at the rally.

0:00:19.079 --> 0:00:23.279
<v Speaker 1>Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Secretary of the U

0:00:23.360 --> 0:00:27.440
<v Speaker 1>S Department of Housing and Urban Development, Dr. Ben Carson.

0:00:29.520 --> 0:00:33.680
<v Speaker 1>After that introduction, the tweeting started. Did Carson violate the

0:00:33.720 --> 0:00:37.319
<v Speaker 1>Hatch Act, which prevents executive branch employees from using their

0:00:37.360 --> 0:00:41.720
<v Speaker 1>government positions to influence elections. Our guest is Richard Painter,

0:00:41.800 --> 0:00:44.199
<v Speaker 1>former White House ethics lawyer and a professor at the

0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:48.600
<v Speaker 1>University of Minnesota Law School. Richard tell us a little

0:00:48.600 --> 0:00:54.520
<v Speaker 1>bit more about this law from The Hatch Act was

0:00:54.920 --> 0:00:58.280
<v Speaker 1>enacted to prevent federal government officials from using their official

0:00:58.360 --> 0:01:03.440
<v Speaker 1>position to influenced part as an election. Uh the Republicans

0:01:03.520 --> 0:01:05.760
<v Speaker 1>and the House and Senate. Some of the Democrats are

0:01:05.880 --> 0:01:09.840
<v Speaker 1>asserted about the Roosevelt administration chickler. When they're spending a

0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:12.119
<v Speaker 1>lot of types throw the money, analysts as the programs,

0:01:12.120 --> 0:01:14.800
<v Speaker 1>and I'm gonna using their official position to influence part

0:01:14.800 --> 0:01:19.640
<v Speaker 1>as an election. So the Secretary of Health and Human Services,

0:01:19.720 --> 0:01:22.440
<v Speaker 1>like other federal officials, is prohibited from using his official

0:01:22.560 --> 0:01:26.000
<v Speaker 1>title at a campaign rally. Whether or not he violated

0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:28.800
<v Speaker 1>the Hatch Act will turn on whether he ought, drove,

0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:34.040
<v Speaker 1>or encouraged someone she introduced him using his official pun.

0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:37.560
<v Speaker 1>It was clearly anappropriate friends be introduced using his official

0:01:37.640 --> 0:01:41.080
<v Speaker 1>cast title. The question really is who violated the Hatch Act,

0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:46.000
<v Speaker 1>whether the person introducing him UH improperly used it or

0:01:46.000 --> 0:01:48.520
<v Speaker 1>whether he UH do that that was going to happen

0:01:48.600 --> 0:01:51.640
<v Speaker 1>or encouraged it, in which case he would face violation.

0:01:52.120 --> 0:01:55.800
<v Speaker 1>So us A Hot spokesman told The Washington Post that

0:01:55.880 --> 0:01:59.080
<v Speaker 1>Carson did not hear his name before he was que

0:01:59.120 --> 0:02:02.280
<v Speaker 1>to go on, and all other references during the event

0:02:02.400 --> 0:02:06.640
<v Speaker 1>referred to him as Dr Carson. So if that's if

0:02:06.680 --> 0:02:10.239
<v Speaker 1>that's true, that he didn't really know about the way

0:02:10.280 --> 0:02:14.080
<v Speaker 1>he was going to be introduced, is that then not

0:02:14.200 --> 0:02:19.320
<v Speaker 1>a violation? Well, I think that he would not have

0:02:19.440 --> 0:02:24.040
<v Speaker 1>violated the Hatacks unless he himself used his official title

0:02:24.160 --> 0:02:26.360
<v Speaker 1>or allows the one or tell from what they could

0:02:27.160 --> 0:02:31.000
<v Speaker 1>UH to avoid this type of thing. However, the Executive

0:02:31.000 --> 0:02:35.320
<v Speaker 1>branch agency is as supposed to communicate with the campaign

0:02:35.520 --> 0:02:39.480
<v Speaker 1>personnel people write a political rally, how important it is

0:02:39.480 --> 0:02:42.160
<v Speaker 1>that the executive ranch official only appear at the rally

0:02:42.200 --> 0:02:46.320
<v Speaker 1>in his or her personal capacity, that the official title

0:02:46.440 --> 0:02:50.840
<v Speaker 1>never be use. So apparently that was not done. Um

0:02:51.240 --> 0:02:53.520
<v Speaker 1>so clear it was improper. The question whether this is

0:02:53.720 --> 0:02:56.560
<v Speaker 1>uh ignorance of the law the part of the Trump

0:02:56.760 --> 0:03:02.280
<v Speaker 1>campaign staff, which is entirely pop or whether it's something

0:03:03.000 --> 0:03:08.519
<v Speaker 1>that Secretary Carlton Uh, whether he sucked your Carson encouraged it, uh,

0:03:08.560 --> 0:03:09.960
<v Speaker 1>you know. And then the middle ground, you have a

0:03:10.000 --> 0:03:12.239
<v Speaker 1>situation where his own staff and h g W you

0:03:12.280 --> 0:03:17.000
<v Speaker 1>know was h h HS was with Carol zed and

0:03:17.280 --> 0:03:20.880
<v Speaker 1>should have been more um forward leading and trying to

0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:24.560
<v Speaker 1>prevent these types of violations. How does enforcement of a

0:03:24.639 --> 0:03:29.080
<v Speaker 1>violation of the Hatch Act work? Who reports it to whom?

0:03:29.400 --> 0:03:34.200
<v Speaker 1>The Office Special Council is an agency set up to

0:03:34.280 --> 0:03:39.240
<v Speaker 1>administer the Hatch Act, and they do investigate allegations of

0:03:39.480 --> 0:03:42.200
<v Speaker 1>violations of the Hatch Act. Has been one violation by

0:03:42.200 --> 0:03:45.200
<v Speaker 1>a member of the White House, for sure, who was

0:03:45.280 --> 0:03:49.960
<v Speaker 1>tweeting using a White House Uh, we're using it a

0:03:49.960 --> 0:03:53.280
<v Speaker 1>personal Twitter page that also is a White House photos

0:03:53.360 --> 0:03:58.440
<v Speaker 1>and official titles on a purpose of advancing political campaigns. Um.

0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:00.760
<v Speaker 1>So that's this type of thing some time at the

0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:04.120
<v Speaker 1>time the Special Council of that's the gate. Uh, and

0:04:04.200 --> 0:04:06.760
<v Speaker 1>then make the recommendation as to what should be done

0:04:07.200 --> 0:04:10.600
<v Speaker 1>and what can be done, what kinds of punishment. If

0:04:10.600 --> 0:04:14.600
<v Speaker 1>someone is consciously, knowingly or recklessly violated the hattack, the

0:04:14.720 --> 0:04:19.400
<v Speaker 1>usual sanction is for them to be fired, to be

0:04:19.480 --> 0:04:23.680
<v Speaker 1>fired in um. In June, the incident that you were

0:04:23.720 --> 0:04:28.240
<v Speaker 1>talking about was White House social media director Dan Scovino

0:04:28.800 --> 0:04:32.599
<v Speaker 1>tweeted a call for the electoral defeative Republican Representative Justin

0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:35.480
<v Speaker 1>Amash of Michigan, who was often critical of Trump. He

0:04:35.600 --> 0:04:41.200
<v Speaker 1>was just reprimanded by the Office of Special Counsel. Well, yes,

0:04:41.279 --> 0:04:44.080
<v Speaker 1>the ulti Special Council cannot make the decision about where

0:04:44.120 --> 0:04:48.760
<v Speaker 1>to fire somebody if they make a respectation. Uh, that's

0:04:48.800 --> 0:04:51.040
<v Speaker 1>up to the president of this White House has had

0:04:51.080 --> 0:04:53.720
<v Speaker 1>a somewhat laxed approach to the office issues. They did

0:04:53.800 --> 0:04:57.800
<v Speaker 1>sanction Kelly and Conway at all with respected for violence

0:04:57.839 --> 0:05:00.400
<v Speaker 1>of the ethics rules. That wasn't a violas match Act.

0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:02.880
<v Speaker 1>But she was using her official position to promote a

0:05:02.920 --> 0:05:05.840
<v Speaker 1>vanka's clothing and the office governor. It's really very clear

0:05:05.880 --> 0:05:08.000
<v Speaker 1>that was a violation, and they just got a lot

0:05:08.040 --> 0:05:10.800
<v Speaker 1>of pushback to the White House of that. So at

0:05:10.839 --> 0:05:14.480
<v Speaker 1>the end of the day, Uh, the President decides how

0:05:14.560 --> 0:05:16.800
<v Speaker 1>strictly he's going to enforce these rules for his there

0:05:17.279 --> 0:05:22.600
<v Speaker 1>and Richard, really everyone who when Ben Carson comes on stage,

0:05:22.920 --> 0:05:26.320
<v Speaker 1>just about everybody knows he's the HUD secretary. What harm

0:05:26.640 --> 0:05:31.040
<v Speaker 1>or influence is there really in someone introducing him for

0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:36.440
<v Speaker 1>about ten seconds as the HUD secretary. Well, that's a

0:05:36.600 --> 0:05:39.760
<v Speaker 1>very good question because I've taken the position that's what

0:05:39.880 --> 0:05:44.279
<v Speaker 1>the law should be is the Cabinet secretary, high ranking

0:05:45.120 --> 0:05:49.040
<v Speaker 1>executive branch officials should be prohibited for participating in campaign

0:05:49.440 --> 0:05:52.559
<v Speaker 1>events while they are holding off the only hold office

0:05:52.680 --> 0:05:54.800
<v Speaker 1>usually for a few years, and I think that's a

0:05:54.880 --> 0:05:57.520
<v Speaker 1>time of focus of their official duties and not participating

0:05:57.560 --> 0:06:00.800
<v Speaker 1>the part of the politics at all. Um at least

0:06:00.800 --> 0:06:03.120
<v Speaker 1>they shouldn't be going to fund break But that's my

0:06:03.240 --> 0:06:05.680
<v Speaker 1>view of what the law should say. What the law

0:06:05.960 --> 0:06:08.760
<v Speaker 1>is is that they are allowed to participate. Where we

0:06:08.880 --> 0:06:10.960
<v Speaker 1>draw the lot and say, well, they cannot use their

0:06:10.960 --> 0:06:15.440
<v Speaker 1>official title, Uh, they cannot use any government money for

0:06:15.600 --> 0:06:21.200
<v Speaker 1>persons attending an event costs. Uh. And then they are, however,

0:06:21.279 --> 0:06:23.400
<v Speaker 1>allowed to participate in their pression of the path. But

0:06:23.560 --> 0:06:25.920
<v Speaker 1>either though, it's you're correctly quite out. Everybody knows who

0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:28.120
<v Speaker 1>they are. People go to these events in order to

0:06:28.200 --> 0:06:32.200
<v Speaker 1>smooth these executive branch of social and uh. You know,

0:06:32.279 --> 0:06:35.480
<v Speaker 1>I think it encourages the pay to play game in

0:06:35.640 --> 0:06:39.240
<v Speaker 1>politics when we let executive branch official crisis cabinet sectaries

0:06:39.320 --> 0:06:41.839
<v Speaker 1>go to political events. Let me ask you a question

0:06:41.960 --> 0:06:48.960
<v Speaker 1>that is separate. Um, when President Trump endorses candidates or

0:06:49.360 --> 0:06:53.039
<v Speaker 1>makes references to candidates in tweets one way or the other,

0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:57.920
<v Speaker 1>is that a problem an ethical problem? Uh? No, the

0:06:58.240 --> 0:07:00.800
<v Speaker 1>hatchack does not apply to the press and uh and

0:07:00.920 --> 0:07:03.600
<v Speaker 1>the vice president does not apply to the member Congress.

0:07:04.080 --> 0:07:08.239
<v Speaker 1>We don't distinguish between their official capacity and their political

0:07:08.320 --> 0:07:12.000
<v Speaker 1>capacity as we would for other executive branch employees other

0:07:12.040 --> 0:07:14.840
<v Speaker 1>than the president of the vice president. So presidents have

0:07:15.920 --> 0:07:21.160
<v Speaker 1>appeared uh uh quite recently, the introduced as president and

0:07:21.240 --> 0:07:27.560
<v Speaker 1>then they endorse a candidate. Uh. And uh. That that's

0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:30.040
<v Speaker 1>why comments So I wouldn't I would expect to see

0:07:30.080 --> 0:07:32.400
<v Speaker 1>more than was unusual. President Trump is of course, he's

0:07:32.400 --> 0:07:35.880
<v Speaker 1>attacking so many members of his own party. Uh that

0:07:36.000 --> 0:07:38.720
<v Speaker 1>I'm not there being a Republican to lest other times through.

0:07:38.840 --> 0:07:42.280
<v Speaker 1>But that's a practical problem. Yes it is, all right.

0:07:42.640 --> 0:07:46.840
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for being on Bloomberg Law. That's Richard Painter,

0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:50.880
<v Speaker 1>and he is an ex ethics expert, if I can

0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:54.720
<v Speaker 1>say that correctly. Thanks so much Richard for being on

0:07:54.840 --> 0:07:58.320
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law. As always. He's a former ethics lawyer at

0:07:58.320 --> 0:08:00.040
<v Speaker 1>the White's House and a professor at the Universe in

0:08:00.200 --> 0:08:01.520
<v Speaker 1>Minnesota Law School.