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

[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:

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,

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

www.law.cornell.edu

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.

Last I heard the DOJ is an agency, the WH Office, not so much.

.

They're both agencies.

 

[Nostra]

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.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

She also says the account is hers, not of her position, so she is not "using" it.

I have a feeling my position would in in any hearing held over this.

The fact that it appears in her title is her using it. You can't claim you're not using something after using it. It makes no sense.

She wasn't using her title to endorse the product. The title block clearly states that the account is her personal one, and not part of her position.

I would win this 100%.

Sure she is. If her title appears by the endorsement, then she's using it.

How is the air down there at the bottom of the barrel you are scraping, Pissy Pants Boi?

 

[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.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

She also says the account is hers, not of her position, so she is not "using" it.

I have a feeling my position would in in any hearing held over this.

The fact that it appears in her title is her using it. You can't claim you're not using something after using it. It makes no sense.

She wasn't using her title to endorse the product. The title block clearly states that the account is her personal one, and not part of her position.

I would win this 100%.

Sure she is. If her title appears by the endorsement, then she's using it.

How is the air down there at the bottom of the barrel you are scraping, Pissy Pants Boi?

Doing fine. It's been entertaining correcting you idiots on your massive misconceptions.

I'm just waiting for the 5th idiot to come in here and tell me she isn't an employee.

 

[dudmuck]

22 pages over this non issue. The Marxist left is desperate, and funny, in a sick sort of way.

 

[Nostra]

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.

She wasn't using her position. She posted as herself.

Her title appears on her account, so she is indeed using it.

She also says the account is hers, not of her position, so she is not "using" it.

I have a feeling my position would in in any hearing held over this.

The fact that it appears in her title is her using it. You can't claim you're not using something after using it. It makes no sense.

She wasn't using her title to endorse the product. The title block clearly states that the account is her personal one, and not part of her position.

I would win this 100%.

Sure she is. If her title appears by the endorsement, then she's using it.

How is the air down there at the bottom of the barrel you are scraping, Pissy Pants Boi?

Doing fine. It's been entertaining correcting you idiots on your massive misconceptions.

I'm just waiting for the 5th idiot to come in here and tell me she isn't an employee.

Where have I said anything about her employment status, SoiBoi?

I haven't. Oops! You are caught in yet another lie.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Post the language that you think supports what you said.

I already have, try paying attention.

.

 

[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.

.

The White House Office is an agency.

Not according to OLC.

.

 

[colfax_m]

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

Post the language that you think supports what you said.

I already have, try paying attention.

.

You posted language talking about her attempt to be an informal advisor, which the article explains she abandoned because it made no sense and became an official employee.

You're reading comprehension sucks.

 

[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.

Not according to OLC.

.

Post where the OLC says so.

 

[kaz]

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.

On the other hand, you're perfectly fine with Hillary selling slots on her SoS calendar for actual cash money to the point that's how you got on her calendar.

You're also fine with the Biden crime family selling influence to Ukraine and China.

This indignation is clearly feigned

I'm more concerned about things that actually happened instead of things you invented.

There is no doubt. You're just proving yet again what a disingenuous partisan hack you are

 

[mudwhistle]

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

This is laughable.
Obama supported private companies on numerous occasions while President.

He took over GMC & Chrysler
He signed agreements with Big Pharmaceutical companies
He signed a deal with private companies like General Electric to create the electronic documentation system used in Obamacare and made the CEO (Jeffrey Imelt) one of his cszars.

Obama paid billions to these companies and you fuckers think posing with a can of beans is horrific?

You'all need a serious readjustment.

 

[Nostra]

No lefty outrage over Schumer endorsing a private company in the Capital....

 

[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.

.

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.

I simply provided info to an ignorant commie, and the lying OP that claimed serious legal trouble. You'll note the OP seems to have vanished from the thread. Which is what I'm going to do, I'm tired of going over the same shit with stupid people.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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,

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

www.law.cornell.edu

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.

Last I heard the DOJ is an agency, the WH Office, not so much.

.

They're both agencies.

Not according to OLC, you posted the link. Now have fun, I'm done with your circular non-logic.

.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

On the other hand, you're perfectly fine with Hillary selling slots on her SoS calendar for actual cash money to the point that's how you got on her calendar.

You're also fine with the Biden crime family selling influence to Ukraine and China.

This indignation is clearly feigned

I'm more concerned about things that actually happened instead of things you invented.

There is no doubt. You're just proving yet again what a disingenuous partisan hack you are

Prove it.

 

[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:

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,

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

www.law.cornell.edu

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.

Last I heard the DOJ is an agency, the WH Office, not so much.

.

They're both agencies.

Not according to OLC, you posted the link. Now have fun, I'm done with your circular non-logic.

.

The OLC never said any such thing in my link.

 

[kaz]

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.

On the other hand, you're perfectly fine with Hillary selling slots on her SoS calendar for actual cash money to the point that's how you got on her calendar.

You're also fine with the Biden crime family selling influence to Ukraine and China.

This indignation is clearly feigned

I'm more concerned about things that actually happened instead of things you invented.

There is no doubt. You're just proving yet again what a disingenuous partisan hack you are

Prove it.

You already proved you're a disingenuous partisan hack

 

[Taz]

Of course they are. They are going to make any and every charge they can between now and the election.

100% of it will be lies.

So Ivanka DIDN'T endorse Goya? Is that your final answer?

If she did, do you have any idea what the penalty is? Can you say "counseling"?

.

I don't care if she did. Dude said it was a lie. I was just trying to help.

 

[Oldestyle]

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.

Be honest for once, Colfax! Never in the history of this country has there been so many calls to boycott products or get people fired as there have been from you on the left over the past few years! You seem to think that your views are sacred and anyone who differs from those views are fair game to have their businesses closed or their jobs terminated!

 

[colfax_m]

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.

On the other hand, you're perfectly fine with Hillary selling slots on her SoS calendar for actual cash money to the point that's how you got on her calendar.

You're also fine with the Biden crime family selling influence to Ukraine and China.

This indignation is clearly feigned

I'm more concerned about things that actually happened instead of things you invented.

There is no doubt. You're just proving yet again what a disingenuous partisan hack you are

Prove it.

You already proved you're a disingenuous partisan hack

You can't prove it, can you.