It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Donald Trump is planning to appoint son-in-law Jared Kushner to a presidential advisory position, aides said Monday, arguing that nepotism laws do not apply to White House appointees.
Trump appeared to confirm the Kushner appointment in short question-and-answer sessions with reporters, telling them that "we'll talk about that on Wednesday" at a scheduled news conference.
Aides said the husband of Ivanka Trump is working to wrap up his own business affairs in preparation for a move to Washington
www.usatoday.com...
In 1967, just a few years after President John Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert, as attorney general, Congress passed anti-nepotism laws barring appointments of relatives.
originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Byrd
In an arena with nothing but liars/fakes/thieves... I think surrounding yourself with family is the best idea one could have.
Perhaps the law exists so the liars and fakes can be the ones giving Donald the reports instead?
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Byrd
I guess I don't understand. If it's against the law, it will be pointed out and not allowed. If it's legal, and he clearly is a pretty sharp guy, then what exactly is the issue?
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Byrd
In an arena with nothing but liars/fakes/thieves... I think surrounding yourself with family is the best idea one could have.
Perhaps the law exists so the liars and fakes can be the ones giving Donald the reports instead?
Did the fact that nepotism is a crime escape you?
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Byrd
I guess I don't understand. If it's against the law, it will be pointed out and not allowed. If it's legal, and he clearly is a pretty sharp guy, then what exactly is the issue?
Thought you guys we're done with dynasties?
Perhaps I'm wrong on that.
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Byrd
I guess I don't understand. If it's against the law, it will be pointed out and not allowed. If it's legal, and he clearly is a pretty sharp guy, then what exactly is the issue?
Thought you guys we're done with dynasties?
Perhaps I'm wrong on that.
Oh, so he will be the RNC's candidate in 2020? I missed that part in the story, perhaps you can point it out?
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Byrd
I guess I don't understand. If it's against the law, it will be pointed out and not allowed. If it's legal, and he clearly is a pretty sharp guy, then what exactly is the issue?
Thought you guys we're done with dynasties?
Perhaps I'm wrong on that.
originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Lets take a look at the last 2 weeks for Trump and the right wing congress:
First they wanted to repeal the independence ethics committee.
Then they try to usher in a ton of appointees where several of them have major conflicts of interest, including Trump.
Now, Trump names son-in-law as a WH advisor.
Drain the swamp my arse. Trump's administration is running the show like it's some kind of dictatorial cabal. The sad part about it is that many on this board will try to legitimize this action somehow. But deep down inside, you know as well as everyone else does, that this is creating a disastrous precedence for our Country. Even more sad is that you are okay about this because he has a (R) next to his name. Would you support a (D) the same way? If not, you should condemn these actions.