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

Here is the title of the statue 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. :laughing0301: :iyfyus.jpg: :abgg2q.jpg: :laughing0301: :iyfyus.jpg: :abgg2q.jpg:
The title just say "for private gain" and covers gains by the employee themselves or other private citizens.

Which is why endorsing products is against the law, because it uses the government office to create a gain for a private individual whose product is being endorsed.
 
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,

Example 4:
An Assistant Attorney General may not use his official title or refer to his Government position in a book jacket endorsement of a novel about organized crime written by an author whose work he admires. Nor may he do so in a book review published in a newspaper.

Read this example. This example says it's against the rules for the assistant attorney general to endorse a book about someone else. It doesn't matter if the assistant attorney general sees a gain himself, but the author does.
 
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.

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.


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.
Liberal bullying can't be responded to? Admit it, Colfax...you got a tingle up your leg when AOC called for a boycott of Goya Foods! Just the thought of a conservative being ruined financially because he supports the President got you all giddy! Now you're disappointed that the boycott backfired and Goya Foods is so popular they have to put limits on how much of it people can buy! Democrats USED to be a party that supported free speech! Now you try to muzzle anyone that doesn't agree with your views and whine when you're not successful!
 
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.

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.


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.
Liberal bullying can't be responded to? Admit it, Colfax...you got a tingle up your leg when AOC called for a boycott of Goya Foods! Just the thought of a conservative being ruined financially because he supports the President got you all giddy! Now you're disappointed that the boycott backfired and Goya Foods is so popular they have to put limits on how much of it people can buy! Democrats USED to be a party that supported free speech! Now you try to muzzle anyone that doesn't agree with your views and whine when you're not successful!
Not by government employees. There are rules against that.
 
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.

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.


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.
Liberal bullying can't be responded to? Admit it, Colfax...you got a tingle up your leg when AOC called for a boycott of Goya Foods! Just the thought of a conservative being ruined financially because he supports the President got you all giddy! Now you're disappointed that the boycott backfired and Goya Foods is so popular they have to put limits on how much of it people can buy! Democrats USED to be a party that supported free speech! Now you try to muzzle anyone that doesn't agree with your views and whine when you're not successful!
Not by government employees. There are rules against that.
So it's fine for AOC to try and destroy a company and put thousands out of work because the CEO doesn't toe the liberal line...but it's against the rules for Ivanka Trump to speak out against that? Kind of highlights your liberal hypocrisy...wouldn't you say, Colfax? You on the left are the school yard bullies that run to the teacher when someone tires of your behavior and defends themselves!
 
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:

Not clear at all. The rest of her statement clearly says it is her personal page and views.
 
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.






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.



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..............

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? :iyfyus.jpg: :iyfyus.jpg: :iyfyus.jpg:
It’s in the 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.
:dig: :dig: :dig: :dig: :dig:
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. :abgg2q.jpg:

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.






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.



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..............

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? :iyfyus.jpg: :iyfyus.jpg: :iyfyus.jpg:
It’s in the 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.
:dig: :dig: :dig: :dig: :dig:
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.
:dig: :dig: :dig: :dig:

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.


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.

.
You didn’t read the OLC opinion, did you.


I read the article you posted on it, and it supports what I said.

.
 
Here is the title of the statue 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. :laughing0301: :iyfyus.jpg: :abgg2q.jpg: :laughing0301: :iyfyus.jpg: :abgg2q.jpg:
The title just say "for private gain" and covers gains by the employee themselves or other private citizens.

Which is why endorsing products is against the law, because it uses the government office to create a gain for a private individual whose product is being endorsed.
Have fun down there, Simpleton.

1594908350539.png
 
Yes, it is. Does endorsing Goya benefit Goya?

Not really. It certainly doesn't benefit Ivanka. Gotta let those womenfolk know their place, huh? Women are property of the Democrat party. They don't belong thinking for themselves.

What benefited Goya was the leftist's relentless racist attack against them that prompted everyone to go buy Goya products
 
Now you try to muzzle anyone that doesn't agree with your views and whine when you're not successful!
How’s the Nike boycott going?

Hypocrites.
I haven't bought a Nike product in years. That's my personal decision. I've never told anyone else to boycott them because that's something that should be THEIR decision to make!
 
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.

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.


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.

Let's see:

You're concern for Hillary selling slots on her calendar, Biden getting investments in China and free money in the Ukraine selling influence, Obama endorsing the Volt.

That'd be a BIG FAT ZZZEEERRRRROOOOOOO ...
 
Now you try to muzzle anyone that doesn't agree with your views and whine when you're not successful!
How’s the Nike boycott going?

Hypocrites.
I haven't bought a Nike product in years. That's my personal decision. I've never told anyone else to boycott them because that's something that should be THEIR decision to make!
And by the way there is a HUGE difference between a corporation tailoring their marketing strategy behind a political statement like Nike did with Colin K. and a CEO of a company supporting the President. Goya Foods didn't start an advertising campaign pushing a political agenda...Nike actually did exactly that!
 
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:

Not clear at all. The rest of her statement clearly says it is her personal page and views.
It’s irrelevant what the rest of the statement says. Shes not allowed to list her position period.
 
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:

Not clear at all. The rest of her statement clearly says it is her personal page and views.
It’s irrelevant what the rest of the statement says. Shes not allowed to list her position period.

Has that ever been adjudicated? Do you have previous case law or a determination to prove that?
 
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.

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.


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.

Let's see:

You're concern for Hillary selling slots on her calendar, Biden getting investments in China and free money in the Ukraine selling influence, Obama endorsing the Volt.

That'd be a BIG FAT ZZZEEERRRRROOOOOOO ...
Colfax says the statute doesn't cover any of those career politicians.................but it does cover Ivanka. :cuckoo:
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top