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

[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

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.

Where did you get the quote from?

The law that we are talking about.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

So what agency does she belong to?

Executive office of the president.

is that actually an agency as per federal code?

Yes.

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.

You need proof that the White House Office is part of the executive branch?

Of course we both know it has nothing to do with being an “American” company since Trump has no problem bashing any number of American companies whose owners don’t agree with him.

Part of the executive branch, but is it by definition an "agency"?

Obama endorsed volt at one time, you didn't have a problem with that did ya?

Yes. Any agency is any organization or department that is part of the executive branch. If it’s not an agency, what the hell is it? This isn’t a serious argument.

Answer me one question. Why did Ivanka endorse Goya?

She supported goya against a political boycott.

Does the first lady endorse every dress designer she wears.

But keep this up, Nothing shows how petty dems are when they fixate on chickenshit like this.

Does she defend every company subject to a political boycott or just some?

Did Obama endorse every electric car?

No, he didn't, although there But he endorsed the Volt, which was consistent with his administration's policy to support electric vehicles.

Ivanka is consistent with this administrations policy of supporting minority owned US businesses.

next?

 

[colfax_m]

Wow more complaining about politics being political.

Shucks, sucks that government employees actually have to follow the rules.

 

[Nostra]

She did it because Goya’s owner praised Trump. We both know it. If you don’t admit it, it’s because you’re too afraid to.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Prove Ivanka owns Goya stock

I have no idea if she does and it doesn't matter.

You said she profited. Obviously it does matter if she owns Goya stock since she doesn't work for them and wasn't paid for the endorsement, yet you claimed she profited.

So basically you just lied ... again ...

I never said she profited. If you think I did, feel free to show me.

Otherwise I believe you're lying.

Then she violated nothing, because the statute repeatedly says there must be a gain.

Does her endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Doesn't matter. That isn't addressed in the statute, Stupid.

Yes, it is. Does endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Quote the part that says that. Be careful, because you told us the part that says the endorsement must be for "private gain" isn't really applicable. I'm curious to see how you back track and attempt to now make it applicable to a company.

GO!

 

[martybegan]

Wow more complaining about politics being political.

Shucks, sucks that government employees actually have to follow the rules.

She's a political appointee, not a civil servant.

 

[colfax_m]

Ivanka is consistent with this administrations policy of supporting minority owned US businesses.

next?

But only when those minority owned businesses support Trump. Which is corrupt.

 

[colfax_m]

She did it because Goya’s owner praised Trump. We both know it. If you don’t admit it, it’s because you’re too afraid to.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Prove Ivanka owns Goya stock

I have no idea if she does and it doesn't matter.

You said she profited. Obviously it does matter if she owns Goya stock since she doesn't work for them and wasn't paid for the endorsement, yet you claimed she profited.

So basically you just lied ... again ...

I never said she profited. If you think I did, feel free to show me.

Otherwise I believe you're lying.

Then she violated nothing, because the statute repeatedly says there must be a gain.

Does her endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Doesn't matter. That isn't addressed in the statute, Stupid.

Yes, it is. Does endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Quote the part that says that. Be careful, because you told us the part that says the endorsement must be for "private gain" isn't really applicable. I'm curious to see how you back track and attempt to now make it applicable to a company.

GO!

The part that says for the employee's "own private gain" isn't applicable. The part that says they're not allowed to endorse products is. Endorsing products provides a gain for the company with the product.

Here's the quote:
(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:

 

[Nostra]

Ivanka is consistent with this administrations policy of supporting minority owned US businesses.

next?

But only when those minority owned businesses support Trump. Which is corrupt.

You may need to check out of the thread for a while and get your wits about you. The beating you are taking has left you loopy.

 

[colfax_m]

Wow more complaining about politics being political.

Shucks, sucks that government employees actually have to follow the rules.

She's a political appointee, not a civil servant.

The rules apply to her too. The law in question does not make a distinction between political appointees and civil servants.

 

[colfax_m]

Ivanka is consistent with this administrations policy of supporting minority owned US businesses.

next?

But only when those minority owned businesses support Trump. Which is corrupt.

You may need to check out of the thread for a while and get your wits about you. The beating you are taking has left you loopy.

You have to be a special kind of stupid to not know that she endorsed Goya only because their president supported Trump.

 

[Oldestyle]

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.

Where did you get the quote from?

The law that we are talking about.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

So what agency does she belong to?

Executive office of the president.

is that actually an agency as per federal code?

Yes.

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.

You need proof that the White House Office is part of the executive branch?

Of course we both know it has nothing to do with being an “American” company since Trump has no problem bashing any number of American companies whose owners don’t agree with him.

Part of the executive branch, but is it by definition an "agency"?

Obama endorsed volt at one time, you didn't have a problem with that did ya?

Yes. Any agency is any organization or department that is part of the executive branch. If it’s not an agency, what the hell is it? This isn’t a serious argument.

Answer me one question. Why did Ivanka endorse Goya?

She supported goya against a political boycott.

Does the first lady endorse every dress designer she wears.

But keep this up, Nothing shows how petty dems are when they fixate on chickenshit like this.

Does she defend every company subject to a political boycott or just some?

Who cares?

Because it matters as to why she did it.

You don’t want to answer because you know the answer and are too scared to admit it.

In truth, you and the left are going to assign the reason she did it, regardless of why she actually did it. There is no point in answering.

She supported a minority business that is being hit hard by the pandemic and the Unconstitutional shutting down of our economy by the Governors of this nation.

She hasn't and won't profit from this in any way at all. A thumb in the eye of the left who want to endorce a racist boycott is just a good giggle, not a material gain of anything.

So the president of Goya praised Trump a week ago and Ivanka is endorsing it just happens to be a coincidence? Of course not. It's 100% obvious she endorsed their products because he praised Trump. We all know this. No one is so stupid as to believe otherwise.

She endorsed the product in response to AOC trying to crush a company simply because the CEO said some nice things about the President! You conveniently overlook that aspect of this! If you liberals weren't such bullies this never would have happened!

 

[Nostra]

She did it because Goya’s owner praised Trump. We both know it. If you don’t admit it, it’s because you’re too afraid to.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Prove Ivanka owns Goya stock

I have no idea if she does and it doesn't matter.

You said she profited. Obviously it does matter if she owns Goya stock since she doesn't work for them and wasn't paid for the endorsement, yet you claimed she profited.

So basically you just lied ... again ...

I never said she profited. If you think I did, feel free to show me.

Otherwise I believe you're lying.

Then she violated nothing, because the statute repeatedly says there must be a gain.

Does her endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Doesn't matter. That isn't addressed in the statute, Stupid.

Yes, it is. Does endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Quote the part that says that. Be careful, because you told us the part that says the endorsement must be for "private gain" isn't really applicable. I'm curious to see how you back track and attempt to now make it applicable to a company.

GO!

The part that says for the employee's "own private gain" isn't applicable. The part that says they're not allowed to endorse products is. Endorsing products provides a gain for the company with the product.

Here's the quote:
(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:

Once again you edit out the part about it having to include "private gain". Guess what Sparky, deleting part of a statute on a message board doesn't re-write the statute to mean what you want it to mean.

You are still flailing, bigly.

 

[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.

Where did you get the quote from?

The law that we are talking about.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

So what agency does she belong to?

Executive office of the president.

is that actually an agency as per federal code?

Yes.

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.

You need proof that the White House Office is part of the executive branch?

Of course we both know it has nothing to do with being an “American” company since Trump has no problem bashing any number of American companies whose owners don’t agree with him.

Part of the executive branch, but is it by definition an "agency"?

Obama endorsed volt at one time, you didn't have a problem with that did ya?

Yes. Any agency is any organization or department that is part of the executive branch. If it’s not an agency, what the hell is it? This isn’t a serious argument.

Answer me one question. Why did Ivanka endorse Goya?

She supported goya against a political boycott.

Does the first lady endorse every dress designer she wears.

But keep this up, Nothing shows how petty dems are when they fixate on chickenshit like this.

Does she defend every company subject to a political boycott or just some?

Who cares?

Because it matters as to why she did it.

You don’t want to answer because you know the answer and are too scared to admit it.

In truth, you and the left are going to assign the reason she did it, regardless of why she actually did it. There is no point in answering.

She supported a minority business that is being hit hard by the pandemic and the Unconstitutional shutting down of our economy by the Governors of this nation.

She hasn't and won't profit from this in any way at all. A thumb in the eye of the left who want to endorce a racist boycott is just a good giggle, not a material gain of anything.

So the president of Goya praised Trump a week ago and Ivanka is endorsing it just happens to be a coincidence? Of course not. It's 100% obvious she endorsed their products because he praised Trump. We all know this. No one is so stupid as to believe otherwise.

She endorsed the product in response to AOC trying to crush a company simply because the CEO said some nice things about the President! You conveniently overlook that aspect of this! If you liberals weren't such bullies this never would have happened!

And that has no bearing on whether or not she is allowed to violate the rules.

 

[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

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.

Where did you get the quote from?

The law that we are talking about.

5 CFR § 2635.102 - Definitions.

www.law.cornell.edu

So what agency does she belong to?

Executive office of the president.

is that actually an agency as per federal code?

Yes.

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.

You need proof that the White House Office is part of the executive branch?

Of course we both know it has nothing to do with being an “American” company since Trump has no problem bashing any number of American companies whose owners don’t agree with him.

Part of the executive branch, but is it by definition an "agency"?

Obama endorsed volt at one time, you didn't have a problem with that did ya?

Yes. Any agency is any organization or department that is part of the executive branch. If it’s not an agency, what the hell is it? This isn’t a serious argument.

Answer me one question. Why did Ivanka endorse Goya?

She supported goya against a political boycott.

Does the first lady endorse every dress designer she wears.

But keep this up, Nothing shows how petty dems are when they fixate on chickenshit like this.

Does she defend every company subject to a political boycott or just some?

Who cares?

Because it matters as to why she did it.

You don’t want to answer because you know the answer and are too scared to admit it.

In truth, you and the left are going to assign the reason she did it, regardless of why she actually did it. There is no point in answering.

She supported a minority business that is being hit hard by the pandemic and the Unconstitutional shutting down of our economy by the Governors of this nation.

She hasn't and won't profit from this in any way at all. A thumb in the eye of the left who want to endorce a racist boycott is just a good giggle, not a material gain of anything.

So the president of Goya praised Trump a week ago and Ivanka is endorsing it just happens to be a coincidence? Of course not. It's 100% obvious she endorsed their products because he praised Trump. We all know this. No one is so stupid as to believe otherwise.

She endorsed the product in response to AOC trying to crush a company simply because the CEO said some nice things about the President! You conveniently overlook that aspect of this! If you liberals weren't such bullies this never would have happened!

To Colfax, crushing a company and putting thousands of minority workers out of a job just because someone in the company says something nice about Trump is as American as apple pie.

He is really a disgusting POS.

 

[martybegan]

She did it because Goya’s owner praised Trump. We both know it. If you don’t admit it, it’s because you’re too afraid to.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Prove Ivanka owns Goya stock

I have no idea if she does and it doesn't matter.

You said she profited. Obviously it does matter if she owns Goya stock since she doesn't work for them and wasn't paid for the endorsement, yet you claimed she profited.

So basically you just lied ... again ...

I never said she profited. If you think I did, feel free to show me.

Otherwise I believe you're lying.

Then she violated nothing, because the statute repeatedly says there must be a gain.

Does her endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Doesn't matter. That isn't addressed in the statute, Stupid.

Yes, it is. Does endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Quote the part that says that. Be careful, because you told us the part that says the endorsement must be for "private gain" isn't really applicable. I'm curious to see how you back track and attempt to now make it applicable to a company.

GO!

The part that says for the employee's "own private gain" isn't applicable. The part that says they're not allowed to endorse products is. Endorsing products provides a gain for the company with the product.

Here's the quote:
(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:

From her twitter page:

Wife, mother, sister, daughter. Advisor to POTUS on job creation + economic empowerment, workforce development & entrepreneurship. Personal Pg. Views are my own

Clearly states this as a personal page, not in her capacity as a government "official"

This is why most sites probably say "may have violated" instead of just "violated"

 

[colfax_m]

She did it because Goya’s owner praised Trump. We both know it. If you don’t admit it, it’s because you’re too afraid to.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Prove Ivanka owns Goya stock

I have no idea if she does and it doesn't matter.

You said she profited. Obviously it does matter if she owns Goya stock since she doesn't work for them and wasn't paid for the endorsement, yet you claimed she profited.

So basically you just lied ... again ...

I never said she profited. If you think I did, feel free to show me.

Otherwise I believe you're lying.

Then she violated nothing, because the statute repeatedly says there must be a gain.

Does her endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Doesn't matter. That isn't addressed in the statute, Stupid.

Yes, it is. Does endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Quote the part that says that. Be careful, because you told us the part that says the endorsement must be for "private gain" isn't really applicable. I'm curious to see how you back track and attempt to now make it applicable to a company.

GO!

The part that says for the employee's "own private gain" isn't applicable. The part that says they're not allowed to endorse products is. Endorsing products provides a gain for the company with the product.

Here's the quote:
(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:

Once again you edit out the part about it having to include "private gain". Guess what Sparky, deleting part of a statute on a message board doesn't re-write the statute to mean what you want it to mean.

You are still flailing, bigly.

I did not edit it out. See for yourself.

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

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Agit8r]

LOCK HER UP

 

[colfax_m]

She did it because Goya’s owner praised Trump. We both know it. If you don’t admit it, it’s because you’re too afraid to.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Prove Ivanka owns Goya stock

I have no idea if she does and it doesn't matter.

You said she profited. Obviously it does matter if she owns Goya stock since she doesn't work for them and wasn't paid for the endorsement, yet you claimed she profited.

So basically you just lied ... again ...

I never said she profited. If you think I did, feel free to show me.

Otherwise I believe you're lying.

Then she violated nothing, because the statute repeatedly says there must be a gain.

Does her endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Doesn't matter. That isn't addressed in the statute, Stupid.

Yes, it is. Does endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Quote the part that says that. Be careful, because you told us the part that says the endorsement must be for "private gain" isn't really applicable. I'm curious to see how you back track and attempt to now make it applicable to a company.

GO!

The part that says for the employee's "own private gain" isn't applicable. The part that says they're not allowed to endorse products is. Endorsing products provides a gain for the company with the product.

Here's the quote:
(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:

From her twitter page:

Wife, mother, sister, daughter. Advisor to POTUS on job creation + economic empowerment, workforce development & entrepreneurship. Personal Pg. Views are my own

Clearly states this as a personal page, not in her capacity as a government "official"

This is why most sites probably say "may have violated" instead of just "violated"

Except she listed her job position as a government employee, which violates the rules. It's pretty clear.

From the law:
(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:

 

[Nostra]

Here is the title of the statute in question:

§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.


And the first section of the statute:


An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise

And the idiot Colfax is arguing private gain doesn't apply.

 

[Nostra]

She did it because Goya’s owner praised Trump. We both know it. If you don’t admit it, it’s because you’re too afraid to.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Prove Ivanka owns Goya stock

I have no idea if she does and it doesn't matter.

You said she profited. Obviously it does matter if she owns Goya stock since she doesn't work for them and wasn't paid for the endorsement, yet you claimed she profited.

So basically you just lied ... again ...

I never said she profited. If you think I did, feel free to show me.

Otherwise I believe you're lying.

Then she violated nothing, because the statute repeatedly says there must be a gain.

Does her endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Doesn't matter. That isn't addressed in the statute, Stupid.

Yes, it is. Does endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Quote the part that says that. Be careful, because you told us the part that says the endorsement must be for "private gain" isn't really applicable. I'm curious to see how you back track and attempt to now make it applicable to a company.

GO!

The part that says for the employee's "own private gain" isn't applicable. The part that says they're not allowed to endorse products is. Endorsing products provides a gain for the company with the product.

Here's the quote:
(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:

Once again you edit out the part about it having to include "private gain". Guess what Sparky, deleting part of a statute on a message board doesn't re-write the statute to mean what you want it to mean.

You are still flailing, bigly.

I did not edit it out. See for yourself.

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

www.law.cornell.edu

Sure you did. Here is what you edited out:


§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain,

 

[Nostra]

She did it because Goya’s owner praised Trump. We both know it. If you don’t admit it, it’s because you’re too afraid to.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Prove Ivanka owns Goya stock

I have no idea if she does and it doesn't matter.

You said she profited. Obviously it does matter if she owns Goya stock since she doesn't work for them and wasn't paid for the endorsement, yet you claimed she profited.

So basically you just lied ... again ...

I never said she profited. If you think I did, feel free to show me.

Otherwise I believe you're lying.

Then she violated nothing, because the statute repeatedly says there must be a gain.

Does her endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Doesn't matter. That isn't addressed in the statute, Stupid.

Yes, it is. Does endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Quote the part that says that. Be careful, because you told us the part that says the endorsement must be for "private gain" isn't really applicable. I'm curious to see how you back track and attempt to now make it applicable to a company.

GO!

The part that says for the employee's "own private gain" isn't applicable. The part that says they're not allowed to endorse products is. Endorsing products provides a gain for the company with the product.

Here's the quote:
(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:

From her twitter page:

Wife, mother, sister, daughter. Advisor to POTUS on job creation + economic empowerment, workforce development & entrepreneurship. Personal Pg. Views are my own

Clearly states this as a personal page, not in her capacity as a government "official"

This is why most sites probably say "may have violated" instead of just "violated"

Except she listed her job position as a government employee, which violates the rules. It's pretty clear.

From the law:
(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:

From the law:


§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain,