The Honorable Walter MY Shaub, Jr. February 9, 2017 Page 2
could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency at the Government sanctions or endorses his personal actiu ics of those ofanother 5
3*»
An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise . . . .7
In this case, Conway‘s statements from the White [louse using her official title could appear to constitute an explicit cntlciscnicnt and ndvcttiscmcnt for lvanka 'l‘ntmp’s personal business activities.
As the director of 0013, you have authority to review potential ethics violations and notify the employee’s agency, which in this casc is the White House. In this case, than: is an additional challenge. which is that the President. as the ultimate disciplinary authority for White House employees. has an inherent conflict of interest since Conway‘s statements relate to his daughter's private business. For this reason. we request that you use authority Congress granted to you under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, to “recommend to the head of the officer’s or employee‘s agency that appropriate disciplinary action (such as reprimand, suspciistch, dcnicticn, or dismissal) hc brought against the officer or cmploycc."‘
We request you review Conway’s statements and act promptly on the basis ol'yutlr
findings, We also ask you to report back to the Committee with your recommendation for disciplinary aetionl if warranted.
/
Jason Chaffetz Chairman
Sincerely,
131' a E. Cummings ing Minority Mcmbe
cc: The Honorable Donald F. McGahn H, Counsel to the President The White House
t 5 or K g 2635 man (2016). 7 s or R. s 2635 702m (2m 5). i 5 ll sic Appendix—Ethics ii. Govtrtmlclu Act or 1973, Title w. s 402mg).
