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

[colfax_m]

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.

I did read it, but perhaps you didn't. The red bolded part is the important phrase that everyone here keeps managing to avoid reading.

 

[Nostra]

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

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

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

www.rawstory.com

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.

What gain did she have?

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 5 words prior to what you bolded, Dumbfuck.

for his own private gain,

Which has not relevance here. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the comma after that phrase. It's a list you idiot.

Bite me, asswipe.

You can't change the clear meaning of "for his own private gain".


Give up. You lost.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

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

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

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

/—-/ Read it and weep, Loser: Ivanka 'may have violated government ethics rules' for promoting Goya foods after CEO said US is 'blessed to have Trump'

What am I supposed to weep about? This article confirms what I've been saying.

/——/ It happens often and nothing will become of it. Or did you not see that?

 

[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

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

She’s a government employee which is exactly who the law covers.

/—-/ Read it and weep, Loser: Ivanka 'may have violated government ethics rules' for promoting Goya foods after CEO said US is 'blessed to have Trump'

What am I supposed to weep about? This article confirms what I've been saying.

/——/ It happens often and nothing will become of it. Or did you not see that?

It happens often in this administration and nothing is done about it because this administration doesn't give a shit about the law.

 

[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

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.

What gain did she have?

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 5 words prior to what you bolded, Dumbfuck.

for his own private gain,

Which has not relevance here. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the comma after that phrase. It's a list you idiot.

Bite me, asswipe.

You can't change the clear meaning of "for his own private gain".


Give up. You lost.

I don't have to, it's just not relevant.

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

I did read it, but perhaps you didn't. The red bolded part is the important phrase that everyone here keeps managing to avoid reading.

No, you didn't. The entire speaks about personal 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,

 

[Lakhota]

Critics Want Ivanka Trump Canned After She Tweets Bizarre Goya Promo

The president's daughter may have violated federal code with the product plug.

www.huffpost.com

 

[colfax_m]

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.

I did read it, but perhaps you didn't. The red bolded part is the important phrase that everyone here keeps managing to avoid reading.

No, you didn't. The entire speaks about personal 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,

Do none of you guys understand what commas mean?

It's a ******* list guys.

 

[blackhawk]

Ah the classic it’s only wrong when the other side does it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Good grief, TDS loons are insane

Sorry, but the TDS Fruitcake award has already been awarded for the day. And it was earned by a Leftie.

 

[basquebromance]

its not Ivanka's problem, its your problem

GET OVER IT, FOLKS!

 

[basquebromance]

Ivanka doesn't play to perceptions, she plays to win

that's what you get from this daddy's girl!

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

I did read it, but perhaps you didn't. The red bolded part is the important phrase that everyone here keeps managing to avoid reading.

No, you didn't. The entire speaks about personal 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,

Do none of you guys understand what commas mean?

It's a ******* list guys.

The entirety of the law concerns "personal gain". You're simply seeing what you want to see. The entire context of the law is prohibiting personal gain. Let's however revisit what you said.

Post where it says this : product regardless of personal gain.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

LOL do something about it you gutless cowards.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

I did read it, but perhaps you didn't. The red bolded part is the important phrase that everyone here keeps managing to avoid reading.

No, you didn't. The entire speaks about personal 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,

Do none of you guys understand what commas mean?

It's a ******* list guys.

The entirety of the law concerns "personal gain". You're simply seeing what you want to see. The entire context of the law is prohibiting personal gain. Let's however revisit what you said.

Post where it says this : product regardless of personal gain.

I already posted it. I marked it in red. The entirety of the law does not concern personal gain. The part I marked does not.

Do you guys not understand that it is a list?

 

[JustAGuy1]

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

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

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

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

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.

What gain did she have?

Context is beyond his abilities.

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

I did read it, but perhaps you didn't. The red bolded part is the important phrase that everyone here keeps managing to avoid reading.

No, you didn't. The entire speaks about personal 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,

Do none of you guys understand what commas mean?

It's a ******* list guys.

The entirety of the law concerns "personal gain". You're simply seeing what you want to see. The entire context of the law is prohibiting personal gain. Let's however revisit what you said.

Post where it says this : product regardless of personal gain.

I already posted it. I marked it in red. The entirety of the law does not concern personal gain. The part I marked does not.

Do you guys not understand that it is a list?

Then your ability to comprehend is very low quality.Sorry son.

 

[basquebromance]

Ivanka was beloved by liberals BEFORE her daddy became president...Oprah even called her a "role model" for women

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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

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

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

www.rawstory.com

What elected position does she have?


Oh, right. None.

Goodbye.

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.

What gain did she have?

Context is beyond his abilities.

And reading comprehension seems to be beyond yours.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

I did read it, but perhaps you didn't. The red bolded part is the important phrase that everyone here keeps managing to avoid reading.

No, you didn't. The entire speaks about personal 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,

Do none of you guys understand what commas mean?

It's a ******* list guys.

The entirety of the law concerns "personal gain". You're simply seeing what you want to see. The entire context of the law is prohibiting personal gain. Let's however revisit what you said.

Post where it says this : product regardless of personal gain.

I already posted it. I marked it in red. The entirety of the law does not concern personal gain. The part I marked does not.

Do you guys not understand that it is a list?

Then ability to comprehend is very low quality.Sorry son.

That’s what I keep thinking. You all don’t seem to understand that when things are separated by commas, it makes a list.

It’s like if I passed a law that said its illegal to rob, murder or rape someone, you think it’s okay to murder them as long as you don’t rob them.