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

[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

Bullshit, since she's is NOT a government employee, she can do what ever she wants as a citizen. Why do you hate free speech?

.

Get with the program...

She is Senior Advisor to the President, it was on her twitter account which she used to promote the product.

She foregoes the salary but that is still a position and thus is a government employee.

Wrong skippy, there are laws against people in government hiring their family, she serves in a volunteer capacity, not an employee, that would be illegal. Think Kennedy hiring his brother as AG.

.

Sorry but she is a Government Employee that takes no salary.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/disclosures/07012017-report-final.pdf

Status = Employee.....

You better remove that egg from your face..

Not an employee in any legal or traditional sense. Federal employees get pay and benefits.

.

Very much an employee in the legal sense, which is all that matters.

Yeah, what ever.

.

 

[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?

The same damn article says she's not.

.

It says she wasn’t an employee but after people criticized her for trying to evade the rules, she became an employee.

I swear, you guys are really shitty at reading.

Feel free to point out what I might have missed.

.

I just did.

She tried to get away with pretending she wasn’t an employee while doing everything an employee would do (such as having an office) but was called out on her attempt to evade accountability.

So she reversed course and accepted an official position.

Like I just explained to one of your uninformed comrades, she can't hold an official position, that would be illegal.

.

Better tell the lawyers at the office of legal counsel because they seem to be just as uninformed as me.

DOJ: Hiring Kushner does not violate anti-nepotism law

The Justice Department concluded Friday that Jared Kushner serving in his father-in-law's administration would not be a violation of federal anti-nepotism laws.

www.cnn.com

So, how bout it Tex. Going to double down and pretend you know the law better than the OLC? Not that it matters since the OLC opinion actually counts and your opinion doesn't.

Here's the memo.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2017/01/20/2017-01-20-anti-nepo-stat-who_0.pdf

Wow, I guess I was wrong, the law only applies to govt agencies, not the WH. I wonder why Trump isn't paying them both? That would really make you commies heads explode.

.

It doesn't apply to the "White House Office" which is a specific subset of the Executive Office of the President.

 

[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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Don't have to look it up to know Schumer is on my payroll and is a govt employee.

Sorry for your colossal ignorance.

My ignorance? You're the one that refuses to actually read the law in question. If you did, you'd realize you're wrong which is why you won't do it.

Coward.

Keep telling us how Senators and members of Congress aren't paid by the govt, Fuckwit.

I never said Congressmen weren't paid by the government.

I said they're not considered employees by the definitions set out by this law. You'd know that if you actually read the law, but you won't.

 

[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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Don't have to look it up to know Schumer is on my payroll and is a govt employee.

Sorry for your colossal ignorance.

My ignorance? You're the one that refuses to actually read the law in question. If you did, you'd realize you're wrong which is why you won't do it.

Coward.

Keep telling us how Senators and members of Congress aren't paid by the govt, Fuckwit.

I never said Congressmen weren't paid by the government.

I said they're not considered employees by the definitions set out by this law. You'd know that if you actually read the law, but you won't.

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

Don't throw that back out running around with those goalposts.

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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

 

[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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Don't have to look it up to know Schumer is on my payroll and is a govt employee.

Sorry for your colossal ignorance.

My ignorance? You're the one that refuses to actually read the law in question. If you did, you'd realize you're wrong which is why you won't do it.

Coward.

Keep telling us how Senators and members of Congress aren't paid by the govt, Fuckwit.

I never said Congressmen weren't paid by the government.

I said they're not considered employees by the definitions set out by this law. You'd know that if you actually read the law, but you won't.

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

Don't throw that back out running around with those goalposts.

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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Im not moving the goalposts. I’m telling you this law only applies to the executive branch.

I provided you with the link that defines who is covered by the law but you refused to read it.

 

[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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Don't have to look it up to know Schumer is on my payroll and is a govt employee.

Sorry for your colossal ignorance.

My ignorance? You're the one that refuses to actually read the law in question. If you did, you'd realize you're wrong which is why you won't do it.

Coward.

Keep telling us how Senators and members of Congress aren't paid by the govt, Fuckwit.

I never said Congressmen weren't paid by the government.

I said they're not considered employees by the definitions set out by this law. You'd know that if you actually read the law, but you won't.

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

Don't throw that back out running around with those goalposts.

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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Im not moving the goalposts. I’m telling you this law only applies to the executive branch.

I provided you with the link that defines who is covered by the law but you refused to read it.

 

[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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Don't have to look it up to know Schumer is on my payroll and is a govt employee.

Sorry for your colossal ignorance.

My ignorance? You're the one that refuses to actually read the law in question. If you did, you'd realize you're wrong which is why you won't do it.

Coward.

Keep telling us how Senators and members of Congress aren't paid by the govt, Fuckwit.

I never said Congressmen weren't paid by the government.

I said they're not considered employees by the definitions set out by this law. You'd know that if you actually read the law, but you won't.

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

Don't throw that back out running around with those goalposts.

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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Im not moving the goalposts. I’m telling you this law only applies to the executive branch.

I provided you with the link that defines who is covered by the law but you refused to read it.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

The law only applies to the executive branch. You’d know this if you weren’t such a wimp and actually read it.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

In this case I have to agree. Nothing wrong with the Goya CEO liking Trump or visiting, a bit dicey that Trump's daughter is now doing spot ads promoting the company. But then, Hillary took actual donations from foreign countries to her "charity," then turned around and did them huge favors.

So once again, just follow the crumbs-- -- -- if the democrats don't like it, you can be sure they already did it themselves, did it far worse and did it first.

What company?
What favours?

Lemme guess, "Cowboy," you just dropped in on the planet and missed all the years while Hillary worked as secretary of state and was taking donations from foreign powers to her Foundation and Global Initiative, then JUST LIKE THAT, these very same contributors all got their favors granted by the U.S. they had been asking for. Hmm.

 

[Nostra]

Show me in here where it allows Chucky to use the Capital to endorse a particular company while in his official capacity.

Before you do, please know I can show where it is prohibited under multiple sections.

GO!

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

 

[colfax_m]

Show me in here where it allows Chucky to use the Capital to endorse a particular company while in his official capacity.

Before you do, please know I can show where it is prohibited under multiple sections.

GO!

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Unless it's prohibited, it's allowed.

Show us where it's prohibited.

 

[Nostra]

Show me in here where it allows Chucky to use the Capital to endorse a particular company while in his official capacity.

Before you do, please know I can show where it is prohibited under multiple sections.

GO!

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Unless it's prohibited, it's allowed.

Show us where it's prohibited.

I accept your concession.

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

In this case I have to agree. Nothing wrong with the Goya CEO liking Trump or visiting, a bit dicey that Trump's daughter is now doing spot ads promoting the company. But then, Hillary took actual donations from foreign countries to her "charity," then turned around and did them huge favors.

So once again, just follow the crumbs-- -- -- if the democrats don't like it, you can be sure they already did it themselves, did it far worse and did it first.

What company?
What favours?

Lemme guess, "Cowboy," you just dropped in on the planet and missed all the years while Hillary worked as secretary of state and was taking donations from foreign powers to her Foundation and Global Initiative, then JUST LIKE THAT, these very same contributors all got their favors granted by the U.S. they had been asking for. Hmm.


View attachment 363883

The charity carried Clinton's name, it was a charity... Not a Trump Charity a real charity...

The Clinton foundation was a large charity which did a lot of good.

Can you show where Hillary Clinton took money from the charity.

By the way this was investigated by the FBI and nothing was found to be wrong unlike Trump Charity.

Can you be more specific? There is nothing like what Ivanka did...

Did governments give to the Clinton Foundation to try and gain access to Clinton herself... They might have done that but there is no real evidence of her actually giving access. The Charity was A rated.

Charity Navigator - Rating for Clinton Foundation

Clinton Foundation has earned a 4/4 Star rating on Charity Navigator. This Charitable Organization is headquartered in New York, NY.

www.charitynavigator.org

So show how Clinton personally gained, with evidence (that has to be better than the FBI)...

 

[colfax_m]

Show me in here where it allows Chucky to use the Capital to endorse a particular company while in his official capacity.

Before you do, please know I can show where it is prohibited under multiple sections.

GO!

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Unless it's prohibited, it's allowed.

Show us where it's prohibited.

I accept your concession.

You claimed to be able to show where it's prohibited. I guess that's just you making stuff up again

 

[Nostra]

Show me in here where it allows Chucky to use the Capital to endorse a particular company while in his official capacity.

Before you do, please know I can show where it is prohibited under multiple sections.

GO!

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Unless it's prohibited, it's allowed.

Show us where it's prohibited.

I accept your concession.

You claimed to be able to show where it's prohibited. I guess that's just you making stuff up again

First one:

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

 

[colfax_m]

Show me in here where it allows Chucky to use the Capital to endorse a particular company while in his official capacity.

Before you do, please know I can show where it is prohibited under multiple sections.

GO!

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Unless it's prohibited, it's allowed.

Show us where it's prohibited.

I accept your concession.

You claimed to be able to show where it's prohibited. I guess that's just you making stuff up again

First one:

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Read it. I see nothing in it that prevents this.
If you disagree, quote the rule.

 

[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.

.

Does a company benefit from having celebrities endorse their product?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Don't have to look it up to know Schumer is on my payroll and is a govt employee.

Sorry for your colossal ignorance.

My ignorance? You're the one that refuses to actually read the law in question. If you did, you'd realize you're wrong which is why you won't do it.

Coward.

Keep telling us how Senators and members of Congress aren't paid by the govt, Fuckwit.

I never said Congressmen weren't paid by the government.

I said they're not considered employees by the definitions set out by this law. You'd know that if you actually read the law, but you won't.

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

Don't throw that back out running around with those goalposts.

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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Im not moving the goalposts. I’m telling you this law only applies to the executive branch.

I provided you with the link that defines who is covered by the law but you refused to read it.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

The law only applies to the executive branch. You’d know this if you weren’t such a wimp and actually read it.

(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.

Didn't you just prove the WH Office is not an "agency"? Wouldn't that make all this crap MOOT?

.

 

[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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Don't have to look it up to know Schumer is on my payroll and is a govt employee.

Sorry for your colossal ignorance.

My ignorance? You're the one that refuses to actually read the law in question. If you did, you'd realize you're wrong which is why you won't do it.

Coward.

Keep telling us how Senators and members of Congress aren't paid by the govt, Fuckwit.

I never said Congressmen weren't paid by the government.

I said they're not considered employees by the definitions set out by this law. You'd know that if you actually read the law, but you won't.

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

Don't throw that back out running around with those goalposts.

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?

WOW, now you're trying to move the goal posts because you're getting your ass kicked. Good job commie, your deflection doesn't even warrant a response since it's COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

.

Nope. It’s exactly on topic.

The title is call use of office for private gain.

Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.

Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............

Chuck Schumer endorses Junior's Cheesecake as "best ever". Clear violation of law.

Hey, colfax_m is Chuck exempt from the law prohibiting endorsing products too? Should we hold an unpaid "govt employee" to a higher standard than the Senate Minority Leader? Schumer confirms spending $8K on cheesecake in 10 years: 'Guilty as charged' Senate Minority Leader Charles...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.

Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".

Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?

It’s in the definitions.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

Read the definition of employee and tell me what you find.

colfax_m is now trying to sell that members of Congress are not "Govt employees".

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Did you look up the definition of a government employee?

What did you find?

Im not moving the goalposts. I’m telling you this law only applies to the executive branch.

I provided you with the link that defines who is covered by the law but you refused to read it.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

The law only applies to the executive branch. You’d know this if you weren’t such a wimp and actually read it.

(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.

Didn't you just prove the WH Office is not an "agency"? Wouldn't that make all this crap MOOT?

.

What? No. The White House Office is an executive agency. It's just an executive agency that is specifically exempted from the nepotism laws we were discussing.

 

[Nostra]

Show me in here where it allows Chucky to use the Capital to endorse a particular company while in his official capacity.

Before you do, please know I can show where it is prohibited under multiple sections.

GO!

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Unless it's prohibited, it's allowed.

Show us where it's prohibited.

I accept your concession.

You claimed to be able to show where it's prohibited. I guess that's just you making stuff up again

First one:

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Read it. I see nothing in it that prevents this.
If you disagree, quote the rule.

It's not my problem my link has too many words for you to comprehend.

 

[colfax_m]

Show me in here where it allows Chucky to use the Capital to endorse a particular company while in his official capacity.

Before you do, please know I can show where it is prohibited under multiple sections.

GO!

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Unless it's prohibited, it's allowed.

Show us where it's prohibited.

I accept your concession.

You claimed to be able to show where it's prohibited. I guess that's just you making stuff up again

First one:

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Read it. I see nothing in it that prevents this.
If you disagree, quote the rule.

It's not my problem my link has too many words for you to comprehend.

I read them all. None of them prohibit this.

If there were, you'd provide the language. The fact that you won't proves I'm right.

 

[Nostra]

Show me in here where it allows Chucky to use the Capital to endorse a particular company while in his official capacity.

Before you do, please know I can show where it is prohibited under multiple sections.

GO!

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Unless it's prohibited, it's allowed.

Show us where it's prohibited.

I accept your concession.

You claimed to be able to show where it's prohibited. I guess that's just you making stuff up again

First one:

Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics

www.ethics.senate.gov

Read it. I see nothing in it that prevents this.
If you disagree, quote the rule.

It's not my problem my link has too many words for you to comprehend.

I read them all. None of them prohibit this.

If there were, you'd provide the language. The fact that you won't proves I'm right.