OSC Nails a Low-Level Bushie — Does That Prove Rove Guilty, Too?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


There’s little reason to have faith in the Office of Special Counsel (OSC): it’s run by a partisan political appointee named Scott Bloch who intentionally ignores part of the office’s mission — protecting whistleblowers — and instead devotes his time to rooting out any sign of the “homosexual agenda.” His investigation of Karl Rove’s potential violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from using official time/resources for political purposes, is likely just an attempt to save his own job and a dodge intended to ward off much tougher congressional investigation.

But at least Bloch got Lurita Doan. Yup, the chief of the hilariously vague General Services Administration (GSA) is the target of a OSC report that says when Doan sat down 40 or so political appointees under her command at GSA headquarters for a presentation from Scott Jennings, the White House deputy director of political affairs, she was in violation of the Hatch Act.

Jennings’ presentation was exactly what the Hatch Act forbids. He delivered a PowerPoint that contained slides listing Democratic and Republican seats the White House viewed as vulnerable in 2008 and a map of contested Senate seats. It held other information about the lay of the political land heading into the 2008 elections. After the meeting, Doan asked how the GSA could help “our candidates.”

Doan has until June 1 to respond (i.e. defend herself or resign), after which point President Bush can take action. The woman is demonstratively in violation of federal law: hard to argue she shouldn’t lose her job. The real question is, if Doan is in violation of the Hatch Act, isn’t Jennings as well? And isn’t his boss, Karl Rove, since Rove presumably sent Jennings to the GSA?

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate