🚀 go-pugleaf

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violated 
federal law by campaigning for President Obama on the taxpayers� 
dime, but now that initial violation has the Democratic National 
Committee and an HHS aide in the spotlight for related alleged 
infractions.

A nonprofit government watchdog filed a complaint alleging that 
the DNC violated campaign finance law by misreporting the money 
it spent to reimburse HHS for Sebelius� trip in a way that 
masked the fact that the Hatch Act, a ban on political 
campaigning by government employees working in their official 
capacity, had been violated.

�The DNC described the purpose of the expenditure as simply as 
�travel,� thereby avoiding any acknowledgement that the purpose 
of the expenditure was to reimburse the federal government for 
Secretary Sebelius� Hatch Act violation,� Cause of Action 
explained in a complaint to the Federal Elections Commission.

If the DNC had described properly the expenditures, which were 
paid out in April and August of 2012, it would have implicitly 
admitted that the law had been broken even before the Office of 
Special Counsel concluded its investigation into Sebelius� trip 
to North Carolina, where she spoke at the Human Rights Campaign 
Gala. Sebelius attended the gala on official business, but added 
extemporaneous remarks in support of President Obama and a 
Democratic gubernatorial candidate.

�Not only is it that the DNC is not being transparent about what 
it�s using its funds for reimbursement of, but it�s also 
violating the intent and letter of the Federal Elections 
Campaign Act,� Cause of Action�s Dan Epstein said in a phone 
interview with The Washington Examiner. �Whether it�s to cover 
up the Hatch Act violation or to just not properly report it, 
it�s very clear that it�s not properly reported � [for] the 
reason why, one would have to look into the minds of the lawyers 
at the DNC.�

Epstein floated the idea that the DNC reimbursed HHS (rather 
than the Treasury Department) and classified it as travel, 
rather than as a reimbursement for an independent expenditure in 
order to avoid the appearance that the Treasury Department had 
effectively loaned money to the Obama campaign for the trip 
(which would be another violation of federal law, he said).

Cause of Action also noted another wrinkle: HHS� 
reclassification of the trip as a campaign trip means that A.J. 
Pearlman, the adviser who traveled to the event with Sebelius, 
also violated the Hatch Act.

�That assistant�s participation in the event in North Carolina 
would in fact be a Hatch Act violation,� Cause of Action said in 
another complaint to the Office of Special Counsel.

Cause of Action blamed Obama and Sebelius for compromising 
Pearlman. �The consequence here is that A.J. Pearlman is thrown 
under the bus by Sebelius. Sebelius asked the DNC to reimburse 
HHS for A.J. Pearlman�s activities, which basically [means] A.J. 
Pearlman violated the Hatch Act, which means A.J. Pearlman needs 
to be disciplined, most likely fired,� Epstein explained. �Even 
though she didn�t intend to engage in any political activity, 
she was just doing what she was told.�

An OSC spokesperson said it could not comment on the Hatch Act 
complaint, due to privacy laws.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/complaint-sebelius-illegal-
campaign-trip-for-obama-worse-than-we-thought/article/2520096

--
Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed 
liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the 
outlaw Obama administration?

No.  Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in 
the back while you are defending yourself, then return a 
controlled rate of aimed fire.  ��

��