Slate reports:

Last week, the Office of Special Counsel released a report finding that 13 senior Trump administration officials violated the Hatch Act, a statute prohibiting federal officials from using their positions to influence the outcome of partisan elections. In August 2020, we filed a Hatch Act complaint with that office against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for, among other things, using a diplomatic mission to Jerusalem to broadcast a speech to the Republican National Convention in which he advocated for the reelection of President Donald Trump. The recent OSC report affirms the analysis in our complaint and finds that Pompeo did indeed violate the Hatch Act.

There appear to be no immediate consequences for Hatch Act violators who are no longer in office. Furthermore, even while in office, Hatch Act violators can get away with it if the president is not willing to dismiss them. Yet the OSC finding may be significant for another reason, namely its implications for another Hatch Act complaint we filed, this one a criminal complaint against Donald Trump brought last October with the Department of Justice. Although the president and vice president are immune to the ordinary Hatch Act prohibitions on use of public office for political purposes, there is a separate provision (18 U.S.C. § 610) under which it is a crime for any person to “intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce … any employee of the Federal Government … to engage in any political activity.” Violations are punishable by up to three years in prison. Complaints under this provision are filed with the Public Integrity division of the Department of Justice. That means the decision of whether to investigate lies squarely in the hands of Attorney General Merrick Garland. The threshold legal determination Garland—or a special prosecutor appointed by Garland—must make is whether Trump coerced or ordered the political activity identified as Hatch Act violations by the OSC. If so, Trump could be liable to prosecution for political coercion under the aforementioned statute. [Continue reading…]