Ivanka Trumps Endorsement Of Goya Foods Puts Her In Serious Legal Trouble

[colfax_m]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

Of course you have a link that says volunteers are considered employees, RIGHT?

.

I can do you one better. I have Ivanka saying she's an employee.

"I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees."

Ivanka Trump To Be An Official White House Employee Covered By Ethics Rules

She already has an office in the West Wing. "I have been working closely ... with the White House Counsel and my personal counsel to address the unprecedented nature of my role," she said.

www.npr.org

From your link:

But she did not have to abide by ethics rules, which concerned many ethics experts who said it would allow her to skirt some rules and disclosures.

She also said she would voluntarily abide by ethics standards, that tells me she's not bound by them. You just shot yourself in the foot. A gal has a right to change her mind, RIGHT?

.

That was BEFORE she became an official employee.

 

[colfax_m]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Barry endorses Chevy Volt....

Hey, colfax_m why isn't this a violation of the law you keep editing?

The president isn't considered an employee in this law.

Here's the legal definition used:
Employee means any officer or employee of an agency, including a special Government employee. It includes officers but not enlisted members of the uniformed services. It includes employees of a State or local government or other organization who are serving on detail to an agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3371, et seq. For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President. Status as an employee is unaffected by pay or leave status or, in the case of a special Government employee, by the fact that the individual does not perform official duties on a given day.

Weird how you can click on all the links in your quote, and none of them back you up.

Hmmmm..........................

Can you actually read? The link I provided specifically says the president and vice president aren't considered employees which means they're not covered by the law.

I clicked on all the links in your quote................none say what you claim.

Oops!

Yes, it does. Let me put it in bigger letters for you so that you actually read it.

Employee means any officer or employee of an agency, including a special Government employee. It includes officers but not enlisted members of the uniformed services. It includes employees of a State or local government or other organization who are serving on detail to an agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3371, et seq. For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President.

None of your links specify what "subparts B and C" are because none of you links actually say "it does not include the P and VP", Moron.

Your slight of hand won't work.

Post a single link, that specifies what parts apply, and what parts don't apply to the P and VP.

This should be fun.

5 CFR Subpart B - Gifts From Outside Sources
5 CFR Subpart C - Gifts Between Employees

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
(h) Employee means any officer or employee of an agency, including a special Government employee. It includes officers but not enlisted members of the uniformed services. It includes employees of a State or local government or other organization who are serving on detail to an agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3371, et seq. For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President. Status as an employee is unaffected by pay or leave status or, in the case of a special Government employee, by the fact that the individual does not perform official duties on a given day.

The sections that don't apply are the following:
5 CFR Subpart B - Gifts From Outside Sources

5 CFR Subpart B - Subpart B— Gifts From Outside Sources

www.law.cornell.edu

5 CFR Subpart C - Gifts Between Employees

5 CFR Subpart C - Subpart C—Gifts Between Employees

www.law.cornell.edu

The section that we're talking about is in 5 CFR Subpart G - Misuse of Position

5 CFR Subpart G - Misuse of Position

www.law.cornell.edu

There you go genius. Feel free to doubt me, but I'm almost always going to come out ahead.

Thanks. You just hung yourself.

Subparts "B" and "C" are not remotely related to the issue at hand, Moron.

You just said "We are talking about Subpart "G".

The President and VP are NOT EXEMPT from that Subpart...........PER YOUR LINK.

Man, how many times are you going to kick your own ass in this thread?

Yes, they are. Because for the purposes of section G, the president and vice president are NOT CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES.

For the purposes of subpart B and C, the president and vice president ARE CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES.

So in review, subpart B and C applies to the president and vice president. Subpart G does not.

You're a damn idiot.

You are struggling badly............almost BIGLY!

Your position at this point is that a President can endorse for financial gain anything and everything EXCEPT "gifts from outside sources" and "gifts for employees" and there would be no violation of the law.

Cool.

Someone tell Trump he can sign a contract with Ping to endorse their clubs and Colfax would come here and say it is perfectly legal.

I didn't write the law. The president and vice president are exempt from a lot of laws.

But Ivanka isn't.

You didn't write it, but you cited it.

And it blew up in your face.

It didn’t blow up in my face at all. The law this thread is talking about covers employees and the president is not considered an employee for that section.

I posted the law at length explaining it but you’re not very smart so you keep getting it backwards. Not my fault.

What grade did you complete? Because you’re barely literate.

 

[OKTexas]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

You're still only addressing half the equation and obviously doing it on purpose because you realize you're wrong.

If she were PAID by Goya, that would be an argument. She's benefiting from being an unpaid advisor.

But she's making nothing off any of this. That's where your argument falls apart, and you know it, which is why you're dancing and evading addressing the whole picture at once

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

She's not allowed to endorse products.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

You might want to sign up for a remedial reading class, that's not what the law says.

.

Yes, it does.
(c) Endorsements. 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 except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.

5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

www.law.cornell.edu

Did you read the title of the law?

Use of public office for private gain.

ROFLMFAO, what do you fail to understand, there was no private gain, dip.

.

 

[MACAULAY]

The problem is not that somebody violated Government Regulation 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702.

The problem is that there are Government Regulations running out all the way to 2635.702 of Subsection 5.

I may be in violation of 2535.701 for posting this. Since I can't afford a Washington Law Firm to advise me---how would I know?

One of Trump successes is that he a done away with a part of this mountain of pinheaded Government Regulations.

I have already bought some GOYA products, just because their President had the stones to stand up to the Cancel Culture....now I will but some more because Trump's daughter stood up to it.

Fuck you Bolsheviks.

 

[Nostra]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

You're still only addressing half the equation and obviously doing it on purpose because you realize you're wrong.

If she were PAID by Goya, that would be an argument. She's benefiting from being an unpaid advisor.

But she's making nothing off any of this. That's where your argument falls apart, and you know it, which is why you're dancing and evading addressing the whole picture at once

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

She's not allowed to endorse products.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

You might want to sign up for a remedial reading class, that's not what the law says.

.

Yes, it does.
(c) Endorsements. 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 except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.

5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

www.law.cornell.edu

Did you read the title of the law?

Use of public office for private gain.

ROFLMFAO, what do you fail to understand, there was no private gain, dip.

.

That doesn't count............cuz "subsection "F" and "Q" don't apply to someone..........somewhere.............under certain circumstances.

 

[colfax_m]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

You're still only addressing half the equation and obviously doing it on purpose because you realize you're wrong.

If she were PAID by Goya, that would be an argument. She's benefiting from being an unpaid advisor.

But she's making nothing off any of this. That's where your argument falls apart, and you know it, which is why you're dancing and evading addressing the whole picture at once

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

She's not allowed to endorse products.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

You might want to sign up for a remedial reading class, that's not what the law says.

.

Yes, it does.
(c) Endorsements. 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 except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.

5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

www.law.cornell.edu

Did you read the title of the law?

Use of public office for private gain.

ROFLMFAO, what do you fail to understand, there was no private gain, dip.

.

Does a company benefit from having celebrities endorse their product?

 

[OKTexas]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

You're still only addressing half the equation and obviously doing it on purpose because you realize you're wrong.

If she were PAID by Goya, that would be an argument. She's benefiting from being an unpaid advisor.

But she's making nothing off any of this. That's where your argument falls apart, and you know it, which is why you're dancing and evading addressing the whole picture at once

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

She's not allowed to endorse products.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

You might want to sign up for a remedial reading class, that's not what the law says.

.

/——/ But it’s what he wants the law to say.

It is indeed what the law says.

https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Director's%20Notes/BA9EE0185F52C2FB852580A70063149F?opendocument

Once again, from your link:

Today’s note focuses on the rule against misuse of position. This rule reflects a view, which has gained currency in the international community, that one definition of corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

Have you ever worked so hard to prove yourself WRONG? ROFLMAO

 

[colfax_m]

The problem is not that somebody violated Government Regulation 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702.

The problem is that there are Government Regulations running out all the way to 2635.702 of Subsection 5.

I may be in violation of 2535.701 for posting this. Since I can't afford a Washington Law Firm to advise me---how would I know?

One of Trump successes is that he a done away with a part of this mountain of pinheaded Government Regulations.

I have already bought some GOYA products, just because their President had the stones to stand up to the Cancel Culture....now I will but some more because Trump's daughter stood up to it.

Fuck you Bolsheviks.

Don’t become a government employee. Way too many rules you have to follow. It’s annoying as hell.

 

[Nostra]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

You're still only addressing half the equation and obviously doing it on purpose because you realize you're wrong.

If she were PAID by Goya, that would be an argument. She's benefiting from being an unpaid advisor.

But she's making nothing off any of this. That's where your argument falls apart, and you know it, which is why you're dancing and evading addressing the whole picture at once

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

She's not allowed to endorse products.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

You might want to sign up for a remedial reading class, that's not what the law says.

.

Yes, it does.
(c) Endorsements. 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 except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.

5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

www.law.cornell.edu

Did you read the title of the law?

Use of public office for private gain.

ROFLMFAO, what do you fail to understand, there was no private gain, dip.

.

Does a company benefit from having celebrities endorse their product?

You tell me...................






After that, tell me where your statute says "if the company benefits".

 

[OKTexas]

An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

I did read it, but perhaps you didn't. The red bolded part is the important phrase that everyone here keeps managing to avoid reading.

The whole damn paragraph referrers to private gain, dumb ass.

.

That's not true.

Wrong again, dip.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

You're still only addressing half the equation and obviously doing it on purpose because you realize you're wrong.

If she were PAID by Goya, that would be an argument. She's benefiting from being an unpaid advisor.

But she's making nothing off any of this. That's where your argument falls apart, and you know it, which is why you're dancing and evading addressing the whole picture at once

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

She's not allowed to endorse products.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

You might want to sign up for a remedial reading class, that's not what the law says.

.

Yes, it does.
(c) Endorsements. 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 except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.

5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

www.law.cornell.edu

Did you read the title of the law?

Use of public office for private gain.

ROFLMFAO, what do you fail to understand, there was no private gain, dip.

.

Does a company benefit from having celebrities endorse their product?

You tell me...................






After that, tell me where your statute says "if the company benefits".

Probably.

Does the law we are talking about apply to the president?

 

[OKTexas]

I think the alphabet may have colfax_m confused. "C"..."B"....and "G" sound the same.............pretty close together in the alphabet.......


Can anyone help the fella out?

Nope, he's beyond help.

.

 

[Nostra]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

You're still only addressing half the equation and obviously doing it on purpose because you realize you're wrong.

If she were PAID by Goya, that would be an argument. She's benefiting from being an unpaid advisor.

But she's making nothing off any of this. That's where your argument falls apart, and you know it, which is why you're dancing and evading addressing the whole picture at once

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

She's not allowed to endorse products.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

You might want to sign up for a remedial reading class, that's not what the law says.

.

Yes, it does.
(c) Endorsements. 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 except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.

5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

www.law.cornell.edu

Did you read the title of the law?

Use of public office for private gain.

ROFLMFAO, what do you fail to understand, there was no private gain, dip.

.

Does a company benefit from having celebrities endorse their product?

You tell me...................






After that, tell me where your statute says "if the company benefits".

Probably.

Does the law we are talking about apply to the president?

You are claiming the law "probably" says "if the company benefits"????????????????????

 

[OKTexas]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

Watch: Six Years Ago Obama Promised to Buy a Chevy Volt. Now It Is Dead

Yeah, but remember how the Democrats all wanted him investigated for that? Hmm ... I don't either ...

They will say as an elected official he isn't beholden to those rules. Of course, Trump's daughter isn't a civil service employee of the government, so her application vis a vis the law is probably hazy as well.

They got their soundbite, that's all they care about.

Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.

A civil servant with a title?

I believe her title is special advisor to the president.

Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?

No. No. No.

Any other questions?

The law they are quoting probably applies to a specific type of employee. Any idea which one it applies to?

It applies to almost everyone in government:
(h) Employee means any officer or employee of an agency, including a special Government employee. It includes officers but not enlisted members of the uniformed services. It includes employees of a State or local government or other organization who are serving on detail to an agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3371, et seq. For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President. Status as an employee is unaffected by pay or leave status or, in the case of a special Government employee, by the fact that the individual does not perform official duties on a given day.

employee
[emˈploiē, emˌploiˈē]

NOUN

1. a person employed for wages or salary,

Doesn't apply to volunteers, dip.

.

I don't know where you got that definition, maybe a dictionary.

But the legal definition written in law says this:
Status as an employee is unaffected by pay or leave status or, in the case of a special Government employee, by the fact that the individual does not perform official duties on a given day.

Thanks for the effort, dip. You're wrong again.

Wrong, you have to be an employee to have a pay or leave status. Where ever you got your poor education, you should ask for a refund.

.

Ivanka is an employee. Whether she is paid or not is irrelevant.

She said so herself:
“I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees.”

Ivanka Trump To Be An Official White House Employee Covered By Ethics Rules

She already has an office in the West Wing. "I have been working closely ... with the White House Counsel and my personal counsel to address the unprecedented nature of my role," she said.

www.npr.org

You’re about the third dumbass I’ve proven wrong at this point and y’all just run away without ever manning up and admitting it.

Your opinion isn't fact, actually it's more of a fantasy. LMAO

.

 

[keepitreal]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

ROFLMFAO

Hillary didn't know better though

 

[colfax_m]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

Watch: Six Years Ago Obama Promised to Buy a Chevy Volt. Now It Is Dead

Yeah, but remember how the Democrats all wanted him investigated for that? Hmm ... I don't either ...

They will say as an elected official he isn't beholden to those rules. Of course, Trump's daughter isn't a civil service employee of the government, so her application vis a vis the law is probably hazy as well.

They got their soundbite, that's all they care about.

Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.

A civil servant with a title?

I believe her title is special advisor to the president.

Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?

No. No. No.

Any other questions?

The law they are quoting probably applies to a specific type of employee. Any idea which one it applies to?

It applies to almost everyone in government:
(h) Employee means any officer or employee of an agency, including a special Government employee. It includes officers but not enlisted members of the uniformed services. It includes employees of a State or local government or other organization who are serving on detail to an agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3371, et seq. For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President. Status as an employee is unaffected by pay or leave status or, in the case of a special Government employee, by the fact that the individual does not perform official duties on a given day.

employee
[emˈploiē, emˌploiˈē]

NOUN

1. a person employed for wages or salary,

Doesn't apply to volunteers, dip.

.

I don't know where you got that definition, maybe a dictionary.

But the legal definition written in law says this:
Status as an employee is unaffected by pay or leave status or, in the case of a special Government employee, by the fact that the individual does not perform official duties on a given day.

Thanks for the effort, dip. You're wrong again.

Wrong, you have to be an employee to have a pay or leave status. Where ever you got your poor education, you should ask for a refund.

.

Ivanka is an employee. Whether she is paid or not is irrelevant.

She said so herself:
“I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees.”

Ivanka Trump To Be An Official White House Employee Covered By Ethics Rules

She already has an office in the West Wing. "I have been working closely ... with the White House Counsel and my personal counsel to address the unprecedented nature of my role," she said.

www.npr.org

You’re about the third dumbass I’ve proven wrong at this point and y’all just run away without ever manning up and admitting it.

Your opinion isn't fact, actually it's more of a fantasy. LMAO

.

Im not giving you my opinion. I’m literally quoting Ivanka announcing that she’s a federal employee.

Can you respond to the quote from Ivanka?

 

[Nostra]

Hey, colfax_m does the statute cover Nazi Pelousy?

Here she is encouraging people to "come to Chinatown"...............endorsing Chinatown. (we will ignore this was well after the pandemic happened....another subject)

Do charges need to be brought against Nazi?

“But we do want to say to be people, ‘Come to Chinatown, we are careful safe, and come join us.’”

Pelosi tours San Francisco's Chinatown in attempt to ease fears of coronavirus

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a visit to San Francisco’s Chinatown on Monday to assuage concerns about the coronavirus as tourism to the city’s famed neighborhood has declined in recent weeks.

www.foxnews.com

 

[colfax_m]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

You're still only addressing half the equation and obviously doing it on purpose because you realize you're wrong.

If she were PAID by Goya, that would be an argument. She's benefiting from being an unpaid advisor.

But she's making nothing off any of this. That's where your argument falls apart, and you know it, which is why you're dancing and evading addressing the whole picture at once

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

She's not allowed to endorse products.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

You might want to sign up for a remedial reading class, that's not what the law says.

.

Yes, it does.
(c) Endorsements. 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 except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.

5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.

www.law.cornell.edu

Did you read the title of the law?

Use of public office for private gain.

ROFLMFAO, what do you fail to understand, there was no private gain, dip.

.

Does a company benefit from having celebrities endorse their product?

You tell me...................






After that, tell me where your statute says "if the company benefits".

Probably.

Does the law we are talking about apply to the president?

You are claiming the law "probably" says "if the company benefits"????????????????????

Endorsing a company provides a gain to that company.

 

[OKTexas]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

Of course you have a link that says volunteers are considered employees, RIGHT?

.

I can do you one better. I have Ivanka saying she's an employee.

"I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees."

Ivanka Trump To Be An Official White House Employee Covered By Ethics Rules

She already has an office in the West Wing. "I have been working closely ... with the White House Counsel and my personal counsel to address the unprecedented nature of my role," she said.

www.npr.org

From your link:

But she did not have to abide by ethics rules, which concerned many ethics experts who said it would allow her to skirt some rules and disclosures.

She also said she would voluntarily abide by ethics standards, that tells me she's not bound by them. You just shot yourself in the foot. A gal has a right to change her mind, RIGHT?

.

That was BEFORE she became an official employee.

Really, it said she already had an office, how does that happen?

.

 

[colfax_m]

Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702. Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics,” Shaub says.

Experts: Ivanka Trump’s endorsement of Goya Foods puts her in serious legal trouble

“Clearly a Violation” Government ethics experts across the nation are denouncing Ivanka Trump’s late-night endorsement of Goya Foods as a violation of law – and ethics – especially as it comes just days after the company’s CEO appeared on national television in the Rose Garden of the White House...

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.

Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.

Not clicking with what an "employee" is, are you? She also wasn't paid for promoting Goya.

OK, so Obama was paid. And he promoted the Chevy Volt. What should have happened to him in your view?

She’s an employee. It doesn’t matter if she’s paid or not. She signed up as an employee. You can be an unpaid employee, kiddo. That doesn’t exempt one from ethics laws.

The president is specifically exempted from the law in question.

Of course you have a link that says volunteers are considered employees, RIGHT?

.

I can do you one better. I have Ivanka saying she's an employee.

"I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees."

Ivanka Trump To Be An Official White House Employee Covered By Ethics Rules

She already has an office in the West Wing. "I have been working closely ... with the White House Counsel and my personal counsel to address the unprecedented nature of my role," she said.

www.npr.org

From your link:

But she did not have to abide by ethics rules, which concerned many ethics experts who said it would allow her to skirt some rules and disclosures.

She also said she would voluntarily abide by ethics standards, that tells me she's not bound by them. You just shot yourself in the foot. A gal has a right to change her mind, RIGHT?

.

That was BEFORE she became an official employee.

Really, it said she already had an office, how does that happen?

.

Her dad got elected. What are you getting at?