Hillary Clinton is not a happy camper, America.
The woman who will be forever remembered as the Democrat who lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump was not only upset about what Trump said during his acceptance speech on the closing night of the Republican National Convention, she’s upset about where he said it.
Huffy Hillary, who still thinks she was robbed in 2016, took to social media Friday to accuse the Republican National Committee of holding a “law-breaking convention,” specifically because Trump delivered his speech from the White House. As she put it, “on your dime.”
“What we saw last night sums up so much of the Trump administration. A law-breaking convention on your dime, on the lawn of your house, to celebrate a president like a king for overseeing the needless deaths of 180, ooo Americans—and counting.”
What we saw last night sums up so much of the Trump administration:
A law-breaking convention on your dime, on the lawn of your house, to celebrate a president like a king for overseeing the needless deaths of 180,000 Americans—and counting. pic.twitter.com/qmoxmOLe4w
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 28, 2020
See what I meant about “bitter”? Hillary dropped the same comments in an Instagram post, along with:
“We have 67 days to end this corrupt administration, elect Biden-Harris, and save our democracy. What will you do?”
As noted by Breitbart, Hillary failed to name any laws that were broken by the RNC or Trump. Breitbart also noted that the image in both of her posts cited a death count similar to the latest claim from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), although the CDC currently categorizes 160,000 deaths as “involving COVID-19.”
Anyway, like clockwork, other Democrats weighed in as judge and jury on the RNC. Nancy Pelosi’s daughter Christine was among them.
— Christine Pelosi (@sfpelosi) August 28, 2020
As was former Obama senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer.
Tonight, Donald Trump is hosting an illegal, taxpayer subsidized campaign rally at the White House and we cannot let him get away with it. Here are my thoughts on how Democrats can make Trump pay a price for his convention crimes. https://t.co/Ez6mbrCgSC
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) August 28, 2020
And former Obama National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, who also said “forcing someone to be a part of your political convention without their consent” is “totally unethical.”
Was this event illegal? Yes. Is forcing someone to be a part of your political convention without their consent totally unethical? Of course. But you can’t argue with those optics! https://t.co/hkolOGezg7
— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) August 27, 2020
And Amanda Litman, who worked on Hillary’s 2016 and Obama’s 2012 campaign, who referred to the Hatch Act — which we’ll get to in a minute.
This isn’t “innovation.” You’ve never seen a convention at the White House before because it’s illegal.
— Amanda Litman (@amandalitman) August 28, 2020
Self-described “Never-Trumper” Tom Nichols — senior advisor to the Lincoln Project, which was cofounded by George Conway, husband of soon-to-be-former Trump senior advisor Kellyanne Conway — weighed in, as well.
I am the grandson of immigrants. I am the father of an immigrant. I am also a law-abiding government worker.
Trump’s hijacking of a naturalization ceremony was disgusting – and illegal. A new low in a dark, narcissistic convention. https://t.co/LWhr5IDnxX
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 26, 2020
And the list went on — with every related tweet containing one word in common. Illegal. Why, it’s “almost” like the word went out. “Almost” like the DNC “asked” prominent Democrats and other Trump-loathers to take to social media and declare the Republican convention illegal.
OK, got it. But was it really illegal?
Before we attempt to answer that question, in part by taking a look at the Hatch Act, it’s interesting to note that while the histrionic Left would have you believe Donald Trump accepting the Republican Party’s nomination from the White House was Hitleresque in it’s xenophobic fervor, Trump wasn’t even the first president to do so.
That distinction went to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who in 1940 accepted the Democrat nomination to run for a third term — one year after the Hatch Act was passed. Cue the Democrat crickets.
Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi unavailable for comment.
So what about the Hatch Act?
Hillary and other Democrats howling over Trump’s use of the White House as the backdrop for his acceptance speech cite the Hatch Act as “proof” that the RNC broke the law by allowing it happen.
The primary purpose of the legislation, which was proposed by Democrat Sen. Carl Hatch, was to ban public funds for the use of political activities. Via Laws:
The Act prohibited political appointees, outside of the President and Vice President, from taking part in political campaigns. The original Hatch Act prohibits the coercing of all government employees through ways involving the promise of political favors including: promising government employment; withholding of government relief; or punishment for political activities.
I italicized “outside of the President and Vice President” to illustrate the obvious point. Here’s a bit of clarification:
The Hatch Act prevents federal employees from engaging in political activities on the job and in federal buildings.
But the U.S. Office of the Special Counsel which oversees the Hatch Act ruled the President and The Vice President are not covered by the Hatch Act. “However White House Employees are covered by the Hatch Act,” the memo says.
For example, a White House gardener is not supposed to help set up the convention speech on the lawn. And a White House receptionist can’t go outside to watch the speech while working.
OK, so Hillary should actually be howling at the White House gardener, and any receptionists who went outside to watch Trump’s speech, right? I’m being facetious, of course, but here’s the reality, according to University of North Carolina political professor Hunter Bacot, at least:
“In the grand scheme of things, it’s not a big deal. Where it does become somewhat problematic is because it is the Hatch Act. It applies to the executive throughout. So, if he flaunts it, others might feel like they can do it too.
Where you would have somebody, who works in the Bureau of Land Management [for example], and they would start sending out e-mails to support candidates. You can’t do that.”
The bottom line.
This was classic Trump. Was his decision to speak from the White House controversial? Yes. Should it have been controversial? Maybe so. But… it’s obvious that Team Trump did its research, specifically as it relates to the Hatch Act.
While Thursday night’s White House Trumpapalooza irritated the bejesus out of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, the entire Democrat Party, and the liberal media lapdogs, I gotta believethe possibility crossed Trump’s mind that it would.
No doubt the whole thing brought a smile to his face.
Originally Posted on: https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2020/08/28/hillary-wants-you-to-know-trumps-law-breaking-convention-was-illegal-%E2%80%94-but-was-it/