Former GSA chief Lurita Doan tells her story about how she got the axe:

Q: Tell us about the logistics of how this all happened. It's been pretty much universally reported that you were asked to resign by the White House. If you could tell us if that is indeed what happened, and then if you could tell us how it happened.

Doan: Well Francis, you know, it's a real thrill to go to the White House. You get to walk up that curved drive to the West Wing, and.... and I have a deep, and a really lasting respect for President Bush who... who I believe is a truly great man, but... but during my 22 months as Administrator of GSA, I had never met with any senior White House person - not once. So here I am, I'm sitting down for the first time with (White House Chief of Staff) Josh Bolton and (White House Counsel) Fred Fielding and less than thirty seconds into the meeting I was told that the White House is requesting my resignation. It was humbling, and frankly, it was bizarre. So naturally, I immediately stated "I serve at the pleasure of the President" and I immediately gave my resignation, but... but it was absolutely surreal.

Q: Was there any discussion of why this was happening?

Doan: Of course I naturally asked why do they want my resignation.... [A]nd I was surprised to be told that from the White House point of view I was considered - and this is a direct quote - a "distraction".

As Government Executive reported last week, Doan doesn't think that her firing had anything to do with the alleged Hatch Act violations -- but rather with her ongoing feud with the GSA's inspector general.

From Government Executive:

Doan's unconventional tactics were on display last Wednesday at a GSA conference in Anaheim, Calif. At a dinner sponsored by a contractor trade group, she appeared on stage with arrows sticking out of her head, shoulders, arms and legs, according to a transcript of the speech posted on GSA's Web site. Using the arrows to illustrate her challenges at GSA, Doan said she had been taking shots from the media, Congress and those who represented the "status quo."

I believe that's what's called a martyr complex.

Government Executive also reports that Doan's ongoing feud with the GSA's inspector general really was the reason for her firing, citing a number of sources including Doan. When the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency dismissed whistleblower complaints against the inspector general, Doan very publicly and stridently criticized the panel as a "hollow shell" that's "real purpose is to whitewash any wrongdoing." She also vowed to continue pressing those complaints.

It's the Bush administration's special approach to accountability: stand staunchly beside an administration official as the allegations pile up and his or her credibility dwindles to nothing, and then months later -- long after the administration could derive any credit for the deed, and it is widely assumed that they are content to let the official fester in office for the duration -- the official abruptly and inexplicably resigns. So it was with Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales. And yesterday General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan stepped down.

But Doan, who gained mucky prominence for her clueless cronyism, wants everybody to know that she's not stepping down voluntarily. She was fired. And not only was she fired, but she was fired because she refused to cave to political pressure. Or something.

"I would rather get fired for something I believe in, and a cause I was willing to fight for, rather than to believe in nothing worth being fired for." That's what Doan told Government Executive in an email last night. It's far from clear precisely what this "something" she believes in is.

What we do know is that last June, the Office of Special Counsel recommended to the White House that Doan be fired for violating the Hatch Act. And that same month, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) told Doan to her face during a House oversight committee hearing that she should resign. And now, nearly a year later, the White House summons her for a meeting and asks for her resignation.

To refresh your memory on Doan's parade of horribles: her Golden-Duke-nomination-worthy testimony came in response to a meeting in early 2007, where Karl Rove's aide Scott Jennings came to brief GSA staff on the prospects for Republicans in the 2008 elections. The PowerPoint presentation detailed which seats were "House Targets" and which "Senate Targets", which states were "Republican Offense," and which "Republican Defense." For those who've never witnessed this proud moment in administration history, Doan's initial blubbering testimony on the topic is worth a watch:

After the presentation, Doan asked Jennings in front of everyone how GSA projects could be used to help "our candidates." Jennings replied that topic should be discussed "off-line," the witnesses said. Doan then replied, "Oh, good, at least as long as we are going to follow up." At least, that's the version given by "half a dozen witnesses" to The Washington Post and the Office of Special Counsel. Doan just couldn't remember saying anything like that.

And then there was Doan's alleged retaliation against employees who gave information to the Office of Special Counsel. Those were poor performers, she told investigators, and "[u]ntil extensive rehabilitation of their performance occurs, they will not be getting promoted and will not be getting bonuses or special awards or anything of that nature." In another cringe-inducing turn before Waxman's committee, Doan tried to explain away that comment by saying she had been employing the "hortatory subjunctive" -- an explanation remarkable for not only failing to exculpate her, but also being grammatically incorrect.

We'll miss you, Lurita.

Update: Government Executive reports that the timing of Doan's resignation might have something to do with her ongoing feud with the GSA's inspector general.

It's just not enough that a number of administration officials have been investigated for malfeasance; the Bush Administration takes it the extra mile. The man who's charged with investigating some of that malfeasance is himself under investigation. And he's clearly no slouch at malfeasance.

Scott Bloch heads the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an odd little agency that was set up to police federal employees of infractions that do not rise to the criminal level. The OSC's main brief is enforcing the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from using government resources for political ends (so Bloch should be a busy man). He's also supposed to make sure whistleblowers do not suffer retaliation. The OSC reports to the White House.

Bloch himself has been under investigation since 2005 for a variety of infractions, including retaliating against employees who took issue with internal policies and discriminating against those who were gay or members of religious minorities. At the direction of the White House, the Office of Personnel Management's inspector general has been pressing on with an investigation of Bloch.

Which makes this all the more curious. From The Wall Street Journal:

Recently, investigators learned that Mr. Bloch erased all the files on his office personal computer late last year. They are now trying to determine whether the deletions were improper or part of a cover-up, lawyers close to the case said.

Bypassing his agency's computer technicians, Mr. Bloch phoned 1-800-905-GEEKS for Geeks on Call, the mobile PC-help service. It dispatched a technician in one of its signature PT Cruiser wagons. In an interview, [Bloch] confirmed that he contacted Geeks on Call but said he was trying to eradicate a virus that had seized control of his computer....

Mr. Bloch had his computer's hard disk completely cleansed using a "seven-level" wipe: a thorough scrubbing that conforms to Defense Department data-security standards. The process makes it nearly impossible for forensics experts to restore the data later. He also directed Geeks on Call to erase laptop computers that had been used by his two top political deputies, who had recently left the agency....

Geeks on Call visited Mr. Bloch's government office in a nondescript office building on M Street in Washington twice, on Dec. 18 and Dec. 21, 2006, according to a receipt reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The total charge was $1,149, paid with an agency credit card, the receipt shows. The receipt says a seven-level wipe was performed but doesn't mention any computer virus.

Jeff Phelps, who runs Washington's Geeks on Call franchise, declined to talk about specific clients, but said calls placed directly by government officials are unusual. He also said erasing a drive is an unusual virus treatment. "We don't do a seven-level wipe for a virus," he said.

The punchline to all this is that even if Bloch were a paragon of integrity, his investigations of administration wrongdoing would be nearly pointless. For instance, Bloch launched an investigation of General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan after she asked her fellow employees "How can we help our candidates?" The comments had come after a political briefing by Karl Rove's aide. Bloch's investigation concluded that Doan should be fired. But that was in June. Bloch made his recommendation to the White House, which has done nothing since. And as for Bloch's wide-ranging probe of Karl Rove's political briefings to federal officials throughout the government? Don't count on any results. It's enough to make a man cynical.

Another day, another resignation.

This time, it's Scott Jennings, who worked under Karl Rove in the White House.

Jennings, among other things, was a frequent contact concerning the U.S. attorney firings for Justice Department aides Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling in the White House. The other Rove aide involved in the firings, Sara Taylor, left the White House earlier this year. When he was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he refused to discuss the firings (or even discuss his role in appointing U.S. attorneys in general), citing executive privilege.

But we'll remember Jennings most of all for his remarkably effective parroting of the White House talking points about the political briefings Jennings gave at various department and agencies. Jennings, remember, gave the most infamous of those briefings, at the General Services Administration. After Jennings had finished his rundown of which GOP candidates were in trouble of losing reelection, GSA chief Lurita Doan asked aloud how GSA projects could be used to help "our candidates." Jennings reportedly replied that the top would be better discussed "off-line."

So in appreciation for Jennings' service, here's last months' TPMtv episode on the subject, complete with Jennings' and Taylor's mind-wracking message discipline:

The scheme was simple: dispatch political aides from the White House to agencies throughout the government and make sure political appointees there knew which Republican members of Congress were faltering. There was a line, however, that ought not to be (openly) crossed. Political appointees got a "not-so-subtle message about helping endangered Republicans," but they were not given explicit directions. That would be a blatant Hatch Act violation.

Karl Rove's aide Scott Jennings understood the game. That's why when he briefed (pdf) employees at the General Services Administration early this year (see a sample slide above), he knew to keep things at the not-so-subtle level -- but no more. From The Washington Post:

At [the briefing's] completion, GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan asked how GSA projects could be used to help "our candidates," according to half a dozen witnesses. The briefer, J. Scott Jennings, said that topic should be discussed "off-line," the witnesses said. Doan then replied, "Oh, good, at least as long as we are going to follow up...."

Today, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) took advantage of Jennings appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee to question him about the briefings. And Jennings, like Rove's former aide Sara Taylor, was right on message.

Read more »

In the interest of absolute precision, here's The Economist's resident stickler on Lurita Doan's invocation of the "hortatory subjunctive."

In Lurita Doan's defense, she has trouble with tense sometimes. That's why members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform think she planned to punish her employees at the General Services Administration for cooperating with investigators, not because she actually planned to sanction anyone.

Lurita Doan explained her grammatical shortfalls in her testimony today. But Democrats on the committee had a hard time buying it. Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) took her to task on her tense mincing over a statement Doan made about GSA employees that had cooperated with the Office of Special Council in its investigation into her conduct. When pushed, Doan claimed she meant to invoke the "hortatory subjuctive" when she said:

Until extensive rehabilitation of their performance occurs, they will not be getting promoted and will not be getting bonuses or special awards or anything of that nature.

Son of a Latin teacher, Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) disagreed. He called her statement the common "future" tense. He also spotted a connection between her grammatical defense and an accusation that she encouraged her employees to help out Republican Congressional races. At a presentation given by Karl Roves' deputy she asked her GSA employess: "How can we help our candidates?"

Here's the video of Yarmuth, Sarbanes and the hortatory subjunctive:

Update: For those at home who aren't ace grammarians, the hortatory subjunctive of Doan's phrase would read:

Until extensive rehabilitation of their performance occurs, let's not promote and not give them bonuses or special awards or anything of that nature.

Update: Here's much more from Doan's testimony today.

Late Update: TPM Reader lampwick weighs in below in the comments:

As the son of the mother of a Latin teacher, I feel bound to point out that the subjunctive is a mood, not a tense. The subjunctive is used for hypotheticals and certain types of commands. The most commonly used mood is the indicative, used for statements of fact. Thus 'will' is the future indicative; 'let us do what Rove says' would be the subjunctive; present subjunctive, in fact.

Today the head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) told Lurita Doan, chief of the government's procurement agency, that she ought to step down.

Doan was back in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today where Democrats wanted to know why she gave the Office of Special Counsel information that seemed to contradict what she first told the committee under oath in March.

The Office of Special Counsel questioned Doan over a possible violation of the Hatch Act about a month after she faced the House Oversight Committee. In a letter to the president released yesterday, Special Counsel Scott Bloch said his findings show that Doan should be punished to the fullest extent possible, which would mean being fired.

The Hatch Act violation stems from a comment she made to her employees about helping Republican congressional candidates. Doan made the comment, according to General Services Administration employees present, at a January 26 meeting at the GSA where Karl Rove's deputy Scott Jennings put on a slideshow showing key House and Senate races coming up in the 2008 election cycle.

In March, Doan had little memory of the meeting, but when she spoke with the Office of Special Counsel she recalled many more details. She also made disparaging comments about GSA employees who cooperated in the investigation, calling them poor performers. She also implied that she'd be sure they would not receive promotions or bonuses in the future.

The head of the General Services Administration should be punished "to the fullest extent" (i.e. fired) for wrongfully attempting to help Republican candidates based on their political affiliation, Special Counsel Scott Bloch wrote in a letter to President Bush released last night.

Now GSA chief Lurita Doan's fate is up to the White House. Bloch's Office of Special Counsel, which is charged with investigating Hatch Act violations, interviewed Doan for nine hours over the course of two days and spoke with 21 GSA employees, the Associated Press reports:

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said they had received the Bloch letter and it was under review. The White House previously acknowledged conducting about 20 meetings over the past several years for federal employees on GOP election prospects while insisting that such informational briefings are neither unlawful nor unusual.

Doan is set to testify before the House Oversight Committee tomorrow.

General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan was such a hit in her hearing with the House oversight committee last time around, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants her back. You can read Waxman's letter to Doan here (pdf).

Waxman wants to know if Doan tried to smear agency employees who testified against her in an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel. All the employees who were witnesses, she told investigators, were biased against her -- they were poor performers who "will not be getting promoted and they will not be getting bonuses or special awards or anything of that nature."

The Office of Special Counsel recently concluded its investigation of Doan and found that she'd violated the Hatch Act, a finding which could lead to her termination. On January 26th, Karl Rove's deputy Scott Jennings gave a presentation at GSA headquarters about Republican political prospects. According to several witnesses, Doan asked "How can we help our candidates" at the conclusion of the presentation. After some participants offered suggestions, Jennings asked that the session be taken "off-line." It's against the law to use federal resources for political ends.

Now, Doan has testified that she doesn't remember ever saying anything about "helping our candidates." And she apparently tried very hard to convince investigators that all those witnesses were disgruntled. "There's not a single one of those who did not have somewhere in between a poor to totally inferior performance."

Except that wasn't true, investigators found. So Waxman wants to know why she'd say such a thing. The hearing is scheduled for June 7.

Smearing employees who don't toe the line seems to be something of a hobby with the Bush administration, Waxman notes:

Over the past five months, it's become clear that the Justice Department falsely raised issues about the competence of the eight U.S. Attorneys who were dismissed last December. That tactic has been condemned across our country and by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. It would be remarkable if you adopted that same tactic in trying to discredit GSA employees who cooperated with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Office of Special Counsel.

The entire scheme has been laid out before us. The question now is whether Karl Rove will get away with it.

Here's the scheme, as revealed over the past month: Rove and his deputies traveled to various agencies throughout the government, lecturing management there about Republicans' political prospects. Which House and Senate members were in trouble? Which Democratic seats were vulnerable? What were the major issues in the election?

But there was a line to be drawn: no commands were to be given -- because such a directive would be a blatant violation of the Hatch Act, which forbids the use of government resources for political ends.

On the contrary, the government officials receiving the briefing were supposed to get the hint -- as Tom Hamburger reported, "employees said they got a not-so-subtle message about helping endangered Republicans." The briefing simply gave them the tools to be helpful in the next election. They were supposed to take the ball and run with it.

The Washington Post reports today that Rove and his deputies gave such briefings to at least 15 different agencies (ranging from NASA to the Department of Homeland Security). But one briefing in particular continues to shine a light on all the rest: the one given this January to officials at the General Services Administration, the government's massive procurement agency.

Rove's deputy Scott Jennings simply showed up and gave the briefing (the slides (pdf) for which have been obtained by the House oversight committee -- that's one of them above). Employees were supposed to get the "not-so-subtle" message. But unfortunately for Jennings, GSA chief Lurita Doan doesn't do "not-so-subtle." From today's Post:

At its completion, GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan asked how GSA projects could be used to help "our candidates," according to half a dozen witnesses. The briefer, J. Scott Jennings, said that topic should be discussed "off-line," the witnesses said. Doan then replied, "Oh, good, at least as long as we are going to follow up," according to an account given by former GSA chief acquisition officer Emily Murphy to House investigators, according to a copy of the transcript.

"Something was going to take place potentially afterwards" regarding Doan's request, GSA deputy director of communications Jennifer Millikin told investigators she concluded at the time.

Doan was obviously supposed to come to the tacit understanding that such things should be discussed "off-line." But, as anyone who watched Doan testify before the House last month can attest, she doesn't think well on her feet.

Now, the White House has adopted the line that the briefings were simply to provide employees a look at "the political landscape." And apparently that talking point has been widely distributed, as R. Jeffrey Smith from the Post found:

By the end of yesterday afternoon, all of those describing the briefings on the record had adopted a uniform phrase in response to a reporter's inquiries: They were, each official said, "informational briefings about the political landscape."

It's all about plausible deniability. As Scott Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel -- the office that is charged with investigating Hatch Act violations -- tells Smith, "Political forecasts, just generally . . . I do not regard as illegal political activity." Bloch, remember, is the one who announced to the world earlier this week that he'd leave no stone unturned in his pursuit of Karl Rove. (There's more on Bloch here.)

The burning question here is this: what about those agency officials who are smarter than Doan? The briefings have been going on since the beginning of the Bush administration. Somebody got the hint, had that "offline" conversation, and successfully helped "our candidates." How many? When? Where?

Move over, Al Gonzales, there's a new campaign for the resignation of a Bush appointee.

General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan shocked the world last month when she gave a performance at a House hearing that was enough to make even Gonzales cringe.

In January, Karl Rove's deputy, Scott Jennings, arrived at the GSA to give a briefing on Republican political prospects. After the presentation, Doan reportedly asked aloud what the GSA could do with its considerable taxpayer-funded assets "to help our candidates." When asked about the briefing at the hearing, Doan pleaded a fuzzy memory.

Ever since the briefing was revealed, Democrats have been vainly trying to get answers from the White House about this and other presentations. So today, 25 senators wrote the White House, demanding answers. You can read the letter here. "The Executive Branch is not an extension of the Republican National Committee," it reads, "nor of any political party. Those who treat it as such must be held accountable."

Also today, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) called for Doan's resignation -- because of the presentation... and a host of other reasons enumerated below the fold.

Any guesses on how long it is before Doan joins that"pretty small number" of administration figures in whom Bush has to express confidence?

Read more »

General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan was raked across the coals last week in a House hearing for having Karl Rove's deputy come and brief government employees on the wellfare of the Republican Party. But apparently that presentation was just business as usual for Rove.

TPM alum Justin Rood reports at ABC News:

The White House political office has been giving presentations similar to the one at GSA since at least 2002, briefing officials throughout the government on Republican campaign information, according to a recent book by two Los Angeles Times reporters.

"[White House political adviser Karl] Rove and [former Bush campaign chief and one-time Republican National Committee head Ken] Mehlman ventured to nearly every cabinet agency to share key polling data" leading up to the 2002 midterm elections, wrote Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten in their book, "One Party Country," "and to deliver a reminder of White House priorities, including the need for the president's allies to win in the next election."

While previous administrations had sent officials to cabinet agencies, the duo wrote, "Such intense regular communication from the political office had never occurred before."

Justin also reports that Doan is under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel. The meeting, and Doan's reported enthusiasm for leveraging the GSA's considerable taxpayer-funded resources to help GOP candidates, is a possible violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits using government resources for political means.

The House's chief sleuth, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), continues to press the administration and the Republican National Committee.

Today, in a letter to the RNC's chairman, he asked for emails "that relate to the use of federal agencies and federal resources for partisan political purposes."

It's just the latest move in Waxman's investigation into the use of RNC email addresses by White House personnel, a practice that some charge violates the Presidential Records Act. Last week, Waxman asked the RNC not to destroy any such emails and asked White House counsel Fred Fielding what the administration's email policies were.

Today, Waxman's letter seeks any communications by White House personnel concerning political presentations at government agencies. A hearing last week revealed that Karl Rove's deputy Scott Jennings had given a PowerPoint presentation on Republican political prospects at the General Services Administration. He organized the briefing using a gwb43.com address -- the domain belongs to the RNC. Jennings used the same address when corresponding with Justice Department official Kyle Sampson about the U.S. attorney firings.

Waxman wants to know where else Jennings or others' in Rove's office gave such presentations -- a potential violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits using government resources for political ends -- and wants any emails that might be related.

The full letter is below.

Read more »

OK, indulge me just a little bit more.

This morning, I wrote about Julie MacDonald, the Bush appointee at the Fish and Wildlife Service, who, when she isn't ignoring agency scientist recommendations about endangered species, spends her time emailing copies of internal documents to industry lobbyists. MacDonald, in my humble opinion, is vying with General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan for Hack of the Week.

Just for an extra special view into MacDonald's mind, here's another highlight from the inspector general's report (pdf). In this episode, MacDonald unwinds by sharing internal agency documents with a virtual friend and demonstrates that she trusts the feedback of her fellow gamer, who's apparently quite young, and her child over agency scientists:

MacDonald confirmed that she also sent the Delta Smelt document [the Delta smelt fish is an endangered species] to an on-line game friend through his father's e-mail account. MacDonald said she is acquainted with the on-line friend through internet role-playing games. She said she engages in these games to relieve the stress created by her job; however, she said she has not played while at work. When asked why she would e-mail an internal [Department of Interior] document to a private citizen, MacDonald replied, "I was irritated [with what was happening regarding the subject of the document] and tried to explain my irritation over the phone; however, I sent it to him to read for a better understanding."

MacDonald could offer no explanation as to why she sent her child an e-mail containing an internal DOI/FWS document other than she feels frustrated at times and likes to have third party reviews of these documents. MacDonald opined that she sent FWS documents to the on-line game friend and her child to have another set of eyes give an unfiltered opinion of them, negative comments included.

Ed. Note: Thanks to TPM Reader PT.

Don't miss this.

Here's a clip from this morning's House government reform committee hearing, investigating General Services Administration Chief Lurita Doan.

In this clip, Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) grills her on a PowerPoint presentation (pdf) given by Karl Rove's deputy Scott Jennings to GSA personnel in January. The slides (13 pages) detailed which seats were "House Targets" and which "Senate Targets", which states were "Republican Offense," and which "Republican Defense." After the presentation, Doan reportedly asked other employees how the agency could help "our candidates." The GSA, remember, is the government's procurement agency, in charge of almost $60 billion each year. All of this seems like a clear violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits using federal resources to aid political parties.

Doan doesn't have a good answer for Braley's questions, stuttering out "I don't recall"s and something about how the meeting was a "brown bag lunch" for the purpose of “team building.” You should "ask Mr. Jennings," she says.

More at Thinkprogress and The Gavel.

A glimpse of the supra-scandal?

The Washington Post's front page story today is about a meeting in January between the head of the General Services Administration, Lurita Doan, top agency officials, and Scott Jennings, Karl Rove's deputy. The topic: how the agency could help "our candidates."

The GSA is the government's landlord and heads up nearly $60 billion per year in government contracts. The meeting was about how to turn that buying power to Republican advantage.

The angle of the Post's story is that Doan's eagerness to join the scheme (get Republicans to take credit for the opening of federal facilities around the country, while preventing Democrats like Nancy Pelosi from doing so) seems a blatant violation of the Hatch Act, a law that prevents federal employees for using their positions for politics.

But there's another lens through which to view the story, a lens that may be helpful in understanding the purging of the U.S. attorneys . I yield the floor to a long-time TPM reader:

....on January 26, Lurita Alexis Doan, the administrator of the government's contracting agency, sent an e-mail to its top-level political appointees inviting them to attend or videoconference into a presentation by J. Scott Jennings, deputy director of the White House political office. The subject of the presentation? Why, polling data from the 2006 elections. And then, the article (and the indefatigable Rep. Waxman) alleges, the administrator solicited ideas for helping "'our' candidates in the next elections." Doan, of course, denies that such ideas were solicited. The White House explains that it was "a factual assessment of the political landscape." But just looking at what's already been admitted - that the conference call took place, and that Jennings presented polling data on the elections - offers prima facie evidence of a Hatch Act violation. Why on earth would regional administrators for the GSA need to be made aware of the political landscape? The White House isn't even claiming that there's a policy-driven reason for the presentation. The *defense* here is that Jennings gave an unabashedly political presentation to a group of government officials. Unbelievable.

Read more »