Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're funny, Ted. By all accounts, those charities were rabbit holes and very little money ever made it to actually helping people in Haiti.The Clinton foundation was a large charity which did a lot of good.
Thanks for proving I was right.I read them all. None of them prohibit this.It's not my problem my link has too many words for you to comprehend.Read it. I see nothing in it that prevents this.First one:I accept your concession.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.
You claimed to be able to show where it's prohibited. I guess that's just you making stuff up again
Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics
If you disagree, quote the rule.
If there were, you'd provide the language. The fact that you won't proves I'm right.
That will never happen.Thanks for proving I was right.I read them all. None of them prohibit this.It's not my problem my link has too many words for you to comprehend.Read it. I see nothing in it that prevents this.First one:I accept your concession.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
Unless it's prohibited, it's allowed.
Show us where it's prohibited.
You claimed to be able to show where it's prohibited. I guess that's just you making stuff up again
Conflicts of Interest - U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics
If you disagree, quote the rule.
If there were, you'd provide the language. The fact that you won't proves I'm right.
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.Hmmmm............Don't have to look it up to know Schumer is on my payroll and is a govt employee.Did you look up the definition of a government employee?It’s in the definitions.Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............Nope. It’s exactly on topic.The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.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.Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.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.
Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.
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?
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
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.
.
The title is call use of office for private gain.
Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.
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
Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?
5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
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.
What did you find?
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.
Don't throw that back out running around with those goalposts.
Did you look up the definition of a government employee?It’s in the definitions.Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............Nope. It’s exactly on topic.The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.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.Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.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...
What elected position does she have?
Oh, right. None.
Goodbye.
Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.
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?
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
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.
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.
.
The title is call use of office for private gain.
Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.
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
Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?
5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
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.
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.
The law only applies to the executive branch. You’d know this if you weren’t such a wimp and actually read it.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.
Didn't you just prove the WH Office is not an "agency"? Wouldn't that make all this crap MOOT?
.
You didn’t read the OLC opinion, did you.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.Hmmmm............Don't have to look it up to know Schumer is on my payroll and is a govt employee.Did you look up the definition of a government employee?It’s in the definitions.Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............Nope. It’s exactly on topic.The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.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.Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.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...
What elected position does she have?
Oh, right. None.
Goodbye.
Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.
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?
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
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.
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.
.
The title is call use of office for private gain.
Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.
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
Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?
5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
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.
What did you find?
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.
Don't throw that back out running around with those goalposts.
Did you look up the definition of a government employee?It’s in the definitions.Ahhhh................so you went from "Govt employee" to "only the executive branch".Nope. The law covers executive branch, not Congress.Gonna be fun watching you spin this..............Nope. It’s exactly on topic.The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.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.Her pay is irrelevant. She is a government employee.She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.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...
What elected position does she have?
Oh, right. None.
Goodbye.
Wrong, she is her dads advisor. She gets no pay.
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?
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
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.
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.
.
The title is call use of office for private gain.
Endorsement of a product provides that company with a gain.
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
Care to quote where it is limited to the executive branch?
5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
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.
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.
The law only applies to the executive branch. You’d know this if you weren’t such a wimp and actually read it.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.
Didn't you just prove the WH Office is not an "agency"? Wouldn't that make all this crap MOOT?
.
That makes zero sense, because the president and members of congress are NOT excluded form the nepotism laws. So according to the OLC opinion that means the WH Office is, because it is not considered an agency.
.
No. No. No.I believe her title is special advisor to the president.Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.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...
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.
A civil servant with a title?
Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?
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.
The law that we are talking about.No. No. No.I believe her title is special advisor to the president.Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.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...
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.
A civil servant with a title?
Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?
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.
Where did you get the quote from?
The law that we are talking about.No. No. No.I believe her title is special advisor to the president.Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.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...
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.
A civil servant with a title?
Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?
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.
Where did you get the quote from?
5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
The law that we are talking about.No. No. No.I believe her title is special advisor to the president.Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.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...
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.
A civil servant with a title?
Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?
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.
Where did you get the quote from?
5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
So what agency does she belong to?
en.m.wikipedia.org
The law that we are talking about.No. No. No.I believe her title is special advisor to the president.Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.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...
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.
A civil servant with a title?
Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?
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.
Where did you get the quote from?
5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
So what agency does she belong to?
Executive office of the president.
Yes.The law that we are talking about.No. No. No.I believe her title is special advisor to the president.Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.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...
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.
A civil servant with a title?
Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?
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.
Where did you get the quote from?
5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
So what agency does she belong to?
Executive office of the president.
is that actually an agency as per federal code?
Yes.The law that we are talking about.No. No. No.I believe her title is special advisor to the president.Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.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...
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.
A civil servant with a title?
Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?
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.
Where did you get the quote from?
5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
So what agency does she belong to?
Executive office of the president.
is that actually an agency as per federal code?
You need proof that the White House Office is part of the executive branch?Yes.The law that we are talking about.No. No. No.I believe her title is special advisor to the president.Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.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...
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.
A civil servant with a title?
Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?
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.
Where did you get the quote from?
5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.
So what agency does she belong to?
Executive office of the president.
is that actually an agency as per federal code?
Proof?
The funny thing is even if this ends up as an "ethics" violation, the likely penalty is some form of reprimand.
Of course the real reason for your butt hurt is she's supporting an AMERICAN company.
The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.
Read the bolded section very slowly:
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.
The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.
If you read the post you quoted, it talks about personal gain all through the statute.
So what do you say should happen to Obama then for endorsing the volt? Or Hunter for profiting off his dad's job as VP?
Um ... er ... that's different, those are Democrats ...
It was obviously a finger in the eye of the left. Good luck with getting that conviction, LOL
No it doesn't. Read it for yourself.
§ 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.
5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.
The regulation specifically exempts the president and vice president. I've posted this numerous times before.Read the bolded section very slowly:
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.
Read the bolded section very slowly. What should happen to Obama for endorsing the Volt?
And reading comprehension seems to be beyond yours.
Sorry kid, the entire context is "personal gain".
