Former President Donald Trump could face felony charges and up to three years in prison for Hatch Act violations, two legal experts say, citing a new report by the Office of Special Counsel.
The report released by the OSC found 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 an Op-Ed published by Slate, Professor Claire Finkelstein of the University of Pennsylvania, and Professor Richard Painter of the University of Minnesota Law School, argue that the report adds to the case for a criminal investigation against Trump.
“Certainly, there are multiple accounts of Trump exerting precisely this kind of pressure on those in his inner circle,” they wrote. “Numerous government officials, from the then head of the FBI, James Comey, to former White House lawyer Don McGahn, as well as state election officials like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and even Vice President Mike Pence, have experienced the brunt of Trump’s coercive tactics.”
They added: “The pattern of behavior throughout Trump’s presidency suggests that the Hatch Act violations OSC has identified did not occur spontaneously.”
The experts wrote that while “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 USC § 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.”
They concluded that the decision to investigate therefore lies with 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,” they wrote.
