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

[colfax_m]

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!

That's fine. I never told anyone to boycott Goya either.

But you know who has called for boycotts? Republicans.

 

[colfax_m]

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

If endorsements don't benefit the company, why do companies pay so much money for endorsements?

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

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

www.rawstory.com

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

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

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

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

Yes. Ivanka is an employee of the government.

A civil servant with a title?

I believe her title is special advisor to the president.

Paid? Civil Service? Senate Confirmed?

No. No. No.

Any other questions?

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

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

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?

It's the office of the WH, not an agency. And she did it to poke the eye of the cancel culture.

.

 

[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?

It's the office of the WH, not an agency. And she did it to poke the eye of the cancel culture.

.

The White House Office is an agency.

 

[Nostra]

Hey, colfax_m does the statute cover Nazi Pelousy?

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

Do charges need to be brought against Nazi?

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

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

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

www.foxnews.com

Pelosi endorses Chinatown.....................Colfax sees no problem here.

 

[esalla]

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

They should impeach her

Ah from what exactly

 

[OKTexas]

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?

The regulation specifically exempts the president and vice president. I've posted this numerous times before.

Again, what's the punishment, especially since she likely did it with the approval of the president?

Dismissal.

The approval of the president has no bearing on the legality of her actions. It just demonstrates his disregard for the law.

Counseling is also an option in the law, all the remedies are administrative. It's not a criminal offense.

.

 

[Nostra]

Schumer endorses Cheesecake company at the Capital.

Colfax has no problem with this.

 

[kaz]

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

If endorsements don't benefit the company, why do companies pay so much money for endorsements?

False dichotomy fallacy. Either all endorsement benefit the company or none do. The simpleton mind of the left.

You didn't ask if endorsements benefit companies in general, you asked if this endorsement benefited Goya. The left already did that benefit with their racist attacks against Goya. The deed was done, they were going to benefit. Ivanka was just having some fun

 

[martybegan]

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

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

 

[colfax_m]

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

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

 

[Nostra]

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.

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.

How did Goya gain?

Their CEO said something nice about a Trump and the leftist Brown Shirts boycotted the company. So it would seem to me a Trump saying something nice about Goya would be detrimental to them, not a gain.

But bring your evidence they gained. Then point out where in the statute that is covered.

 

[martybegan]

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?

The regulation specifically exempts the president and vice president. I've posted this numerous times before.

Again, what's the punishment, especially since she likely did it with the approval of the president?

Dismissal.

The approval of the president has no bearing on the legality of her actions. It just demonstrates his disregard for the law.

Counseling is also an option in the law, all the remedies are administrative. It's not a criminal offense.

.

I wouldn't even go that far. She did not "use" her position as part of the endorsement.

She used her own twitter account, which clearly says the opinions given are her own, not that of her position, and she only states her position in the title block of her account. This is public knowledge. She doesn't use her position in the supposed "endorsement" tweet.

 

[Nostra]

Have fun down there, Simpleton.

I'm right.

 

[colfax_m]

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

If endorsements don't benefit the company, why do companies pay so much money for endorsements?

False dichotomy fallacy. Either all endorsement benefit the company or none do. The simpleton mind of the left.

You didn't ask if endorsements benefit companies in general, you asked if this endorsement benefited Goya. The left already did that benefit with their racist attacks against Goya. The deed was done, they were going to benefit. Ivanka was just having some fun

No one seriously believes that endorsements aren't beneficial for the product. This is not a serious argument. That's why the law states that you shouldn't endorse products.

 

[martybegan]

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

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

The regulation specifically exempts the president and vice president. I've posted this numerous times before.

Again, what's the punishment, especially since she likely did it with the approval of the president?

Dismissal.

The approval of the president has no bearing on the legality of her actions. It just demonstrates his disregard for the law.

Counseling is also an option in the law, all the remedies are administrative. It's not a criminal offense.

.

True. Repeat offenders like Kellyanne Conway should be dismissed.

 

[colfax_m]

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

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

 

[martybegan]

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

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

 

[colfax_m]

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

The plain language of the regulation. It says you can't use your title.

Did she use her title?

Use is not the same as saying your position, and again, she just says her position in the header of the account, which is public knowledge.

To use her position she would have to have stated "As holder of position X, I endorse Y"

She didn't do that. She further clarified in the account header that she was speaking as herself, not her position.

Again, this is why all the articles say "may have" instead of being more determinate, because they know if this was actually brought before an ethics board it would go nowhere.

She's using her position in her account title, so yes, she is using it. All postings on that account therefore are part of it since the account labels her by her official title.

Again, you have a similar case that was adjudicated that proves your point?

She says her job in the title. public knowledge. She does not say "As position X, I endorse Y" which would be actually using her title.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

No, I don't have access to cases on this.

I'm not saying her job title isn't public knowledge. I'm saying she uses it in her account, which means she has to follow the ethical rules about how to behave when using her title.

This isn't controversial. It's clear as day.

It isn't clear as day, and you can't back it up with a similar case.

She would have to follow the rules if she posted as her position, and the account clearly says she is not posting as her position.

In this case she didn't USE her position.

You can't use your position and then claim you aren't using it. That makes no sense.