New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zable" data-source="post: 53368" data-attributes="member: 47">[USER=87]@SueEllenRules![/USER] Which part about the Justice Department's January 2017 finding/advice that President Trump can appoint/'hire' his relatives to White House (Executive) Office positions don't you understand?The "separate law" I referred to turns out to be the American Constitution's Appointment clause (Article II, Section 2), which directly vests the President with 'hiring' powers  in connection with "inferior officers".For your own agenda you are pushing a piece of legislation which the Justice Department has found to be inferior (to the American Constitution) when it comes to Presidential 'hiring' powers. This, despite me letting you know about "the separate law" that the JD sided with earlier. Why, exactly? You doubt the JD's competence or ethics?On March 29, 2017, the Vox, giving a New York Times report as its source, reported that Ivanka Trump "will become an unpaid government employee with the title of special assistant to the president".The Vox went on to say, in its piece about nepotism and Ivanka's unsuitability for the job, that:"Giving Ivanka Trump a West Wing office might be nepotism. But it’s not illegal nepotism. The Justice Department ruled that federal anti-nepotism laws don’t apply to the president’s choice of White House advisers."Like I did, the Vox quoted the Justice Department's Daniel Koffsky. It's report said (in part):“A President wanting a relative's advice on governmental matters therefore has a choice: to seek that advice on an unofficial, ad hoc basis without conferring the status and imposing the responsibilities that accompany formal White House positions,” the Justice Department’s Daniel Koffsky, a deputy assistant attorney general, wrote, “or to appoint his relative to the White House under title 3 and subject him to substantial restrictions against conflicts of interest.”In other words: Trump is going to get advice from his relatives anyway, so he might as well get it in a role that puts some ethical restrictions around what they can do.Congress passed a federal anti-nepotism law in the 1960s. Before that, the only unusual thing about an appointment like Trump’s would be that she was the president’s daughter — not the president’s brother or the president’s son.[Me: Several presidents did that, latterly Democrats.].... Then in 1967, a federal anti-nepotism law reforming the Post Office prohibited executive branch officials from appointing their relatives to jobs in the agencies they oversee. Legal experts disagree ( see <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/presidential-nepotism-debate-goes-back-to-the-founders-time/" target="_blank">https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/presidential-nepotism-debate-goes-back-to-the-founders-time/</a> ) on whether the law applies to the president and to jobs in the White House. [Me: That's the one you quote from in your poster. Section 3110 is known as the Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute. "Passed as part of a Postal Service reform law." The penalty for violating this statute is to withhold "salary or other financial remuneration". Bear in mind, neither Jared Kushner nor Ivanka Trump are receiving salaries.].... Today, Kushner and Ivanka Trump have already disclosed information about their finances and divested from some stocks as part of Kushner’s White House role, according to Politico. As an official White House employee, she’ll also be bound by regulations on financial disclosures and conflicts of interest.You might want to think about why some people in the White House administration refer to Dina Powell, Gary Cohn, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump as 'Democrats' (without the quote marks, even).But I suspect you'll be content to lap up any negative Trump & associates views you come across. Me thinks the Vox article slant will likely be to your pleasing. <a href="http://www.vox.com/2017/3/22/15005508/ivanka-trump-white-house-nepotism" target="_blank">http://www.vox.com/2017/3/22/15005508/ivanka-trump-white-house-nepotism</a>A Vox article which, by the way, talks about Jared & Ivanka "losing the war" to "shape President Trump’s administration into one that actively fights climate change and protects the rights of LGBTQ people" in a presidency which is less than 73 days old.</blockquote>

Verification: What month follows July?