Trump to name son-in-law Jared Kushner as special adviser

a reply to: UKTruth

Another good try at deflection. This isn't about me either. It's not about Hillary. It about blatant conflicts of interest.

I though Trump was going to be the "Law and Order" president!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

I though Trump was going to be the "Law and Order" president!

He is.

His Law, his Order.

Like any good tyrant.

double post

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Another good try at deflection. This isn't about me either. It's not about Hillary. It about blatant conflicts of interest.

I though Trump was going to be the "Law and Order" president!

Yes and conflicts of interest pertaining to the law includes precedent, of which there are many examples of this law being bypassed without problem.
Ones intensity on the rigorousness of laws being adhered to is also pertinent when one is arguing on the basis that 'law is law'. If you can not apply the same intensity to all instances of the law being broken or bypassed then it renders your position irrelevant.

As for Trump being the law and order President, a sensible, non partisan, person does not translate such statements as rigorously applying every law on the book. There would never be the resources to do such. His 'law and order' mantra has been clearly positioned at inner city violence and immigration. Two excellent places to start.

a reply to: UKTruth

Jared Kushner cannot fully divest, and he's already said so. Trump has still not explained how he intends to divest, if he even does.


This about Trump and CO's blatant disregard for the law and the conflict of interest concerns.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: BigTrumpFan


White House staffers, including the senior advisors, are federal employees.

Pay at the White House reflects higher salaries federal government employees, in general.

Top salaries of $172,200 go to 22 people in President Obama's core team, like Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, Counselor John Podesta and Director of the National Economic Council Jeffrey Zients. Their salaries have remained the same since 2010, when President Obama froze the pay scale.
money.cnn.com...

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday announced a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers.....

Civilian federal workers like Valerie Jarrett, Obama's Senior Advisor.

Need more? White House Salaries

Valerie Jarrett, line# 199, is listed as "EMPLOYEE", as in Federal Employee!

Federal Agency is the term covered by the LBJ law.
We will get the outcome shortly. Yours, and my own, interpretations are pretty meaningless right now.

Really? That's your argument? The Office of the POTUS is not an agency? Care for a straw?

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: BigTrumpFan


White House staffers, including the senior advisors, are federal employees.

Pay at the White House reflects higher salaries federal government employees, in general.

Top salaries of $172,200 go to 22 people in President Obama's core team, like Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, Counselor John Podesta and Director of the National Economic Council Jeffrey Zients. Their salaries have remained the same since 2010, when President Obama froze the pay scale.
money.cnn.com...

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday announced a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers.....

Civilian federal workers like Valerie Jarrett, Obama's Senior Advisor.

Need more? White House Salaries

Valerie Jarrett, line# 199, is listed as "EMPLOYEE", as in Federal Employee!

Federal Agency is the term covered by the LBJ law.
We will get the outcome shortly. Yours, and my own, interpretations are pretty meaningless right now.

Really? That's your argument? The Office of the POTUS is not an agency? Care for a straw?

No, if you read the thread I said that seems to be the argument of the lawyers - that roles within the Office of the President are not bound by 1967 the law.
We'll see if they win that argument.

Advisor is not a paid position. Donald Trump already has two advisors, Steve Bannon and KellyAnne Conway. The president can have a thousand advisors. Advisors all have jobs elsewhere.

The reason for nepotism law is so the president doesn't put a relative in a cabinet position which then goes on his relative's resume when his relative runs for president. Advisor is not a formal government position so no one puts advisor on his resume.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Jared Kushner cannot fully divest, and he's already said so. Trump has still not explained how he intends to divest, if he even does.


This about Trump and CO's blatant disregard for the law and the conflict of interest concerns.

The conflict of interest issues are far more of an issue that the nepotism issue IMO. It's something that is going to be covered, I think, in the press conference tomorrow.

As for Trump himself, he is not bound by Federal conflict of interests laws (apart from receiving payments or gifts from Kings, Princes or foreign states). He could still be impeached if he was blatantly profiting from office, but that is not going to happen. Trump actually needs to do nothing more than let his kids runs his business and he could even be involved if he wanted to.

originally posted by: BigTrumpFan
Advisor is not a paid position. Donald Trump already has two advisors, Steve Bannon and KellyAnne Conway. The president can have a thousand advisors. Advisors all have jobs elsewhere.

The reason for nepotism law is so the president doesn't put a relative in a cabinet position which then goes on his relative's resume when his relative runs for president. Advisor is not a formal government position so no one puts advisor on his resume.

You can look up Valerie Jarrett's salary here... White House Salaries

I'm hoping you are aware that a personal/campaign adviser is not the same thing as Senior Adviser to the White House.

Advisor is not a formal government position so no one puts advisor on his resume.

You're just making it up as you go along aren't you... ;-) They probably won't put "advisor" on their resume but I bet they put "adviser".

a reply to: UKTruth

He needs to divest from his DC Hotel, or he'll be in constitutional violation on day 1. Jared has already used the President elect's meetings with heads of state for business networking.

If Trump slaps that big border tax and bring jobs back to millions of Americans, he will be very popular. No one is perfect, but some people are more perfect than others.

originally posted by: BigTrumpFan
If Trump slaps that big border tax and bring jobs back to millions of Americans, he will be very popular. No one is perfect, but some people are more perfect than others.

Nope.

Doesn't matter if you have a salary, but the prices of goods and services have risen beyond your ability to pay.

Now, if Trump could bring back jobs, AND lower prices in the process, that would be something to cheer.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

He needs to divest from his DC Hotel, or he'll be in constitutional violation on day 1. Jared has already used the President elect's meetings with heads of state for business networking.

That is not correct.
The hotel can continue to operate without him divesting it. He would need to ensure no foreign investment in it, but foreign investment does not include a foreign state official booking a hotel room.

The arguments from the democrats are so weak, trying to find anything. But the attacks are just getting weaker in substance every day.

Trump does not need to divest from any of his businesses. Business is a transaction. People use it for a service and pay money for it. Let's say I mow your lawn. Would I not want a pay? Would it do it for free?

No law requires the president to divest from his business. And for good reason.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

I though Trump was going to be the "Law and Order" president!

He is.

His Law, his Order.

Like any good tyrant.

And the scariest part is how the Trump-followers accept everything Trump does. Like devotees of someone who ca't do wrong in their eyes, making excuses for things that smells like going into scary directions

originally posted by: woopy

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

I though Trump was going to be the "Law and Order" president!

He is.

His Law, his Order.

Like any good tyrant.

And the scariest part is how the Trump-followers accept everything Trump does. Like devotees of someone who ca't do wrong in their eyes, making excuses for things that smells like going into scary directions

It seems that way because liberals keep making false accusations, statements and pushing fake news. When you want to have a substantive discussion, you might get a different response.

originally posted by: BigTrumpFan
If Trump slaps that big border tax and bring jobs back to millions of Americans, he will be very popular. No one is perfect, but some people are more perfect than others.

The Big Border tax will never happen as long as the US is a member of the WTO - WTO rules forbid: (i) Most Favored Nation (GATT Article I—the principle that a WTO member must treat imports from all other members equally) and (ii) the United States’ tariff bindings (GATT Article II—the rule that a WTO Member cannot impose tariffs above the “bound rate” set forth in its tariff schedule)..

Tariff's on Chinese imports would only hurt the US working class.... who do you think buys cheap Chinese products? I know that Trump supporters think that less Chinese imports would increase manufacturing here in the US but... it would be more likely that imports would simply shift from China to other, more expensive countries like Vietnam, Mexico and India...

Not to mention that there are US laws in place which govern the imposition of remedial tariffs on Chinese and other imports.

The Big Border tax is a pipe dream... and you better hope Trump doesn't get his way on that one... otherwise your smart phone will cost an arm and a leg...

Bump this from UKTruth's post:
Needs to be read a few times by a few people.

But the Act’s sponsor, Rep. Neal Smith (D-Iowa), later denied that argument in an interview with the Des Moines Register. Smith claimed that his goal was to crack down on nepotism at “smaller post offices” and Congress, because when he arrived on Capitol hill in the early ’60s, “there were 50 members who had their wives on the payrolls,” as he told the newspaper. ”Some were doing a good job, but…two-thirds of them didn’t do any work at all,” he said. “‘We can’t prohibit someone from getting a job just because they have a certain relative, but you need to make sure it’s not going too far.” Twenty years later, in 1987, an investigation published by the news agency United Press International reported that at least 73 relatives of lawmakers had been on the congressional payroll since June 1986 because members of Congress were “skirting” the 1967 anti-nepotism statute by getting them jobs at other House and Senate offices.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

Using cheap foreign labor to make American goods to resell back in America at original prices is not trade. Trade involves an exchange of two goods. One good does not a trade make.

If Ford makes a factory in Mexico to make cars to sell in Mexico, no prob. If Ford makes a factory in Mexico to use cheap Mexican labor to sell back to America at original prices, BIG BORDER TAX.

Trade is about comparative advantage. If country A has apples but no oranges, country B has oranges but no apples, country A and country B trade apples and oranges. No prob. Using foreign cheap labor to build American goods to sell in America at original prices to rip off Americans, that is not trade, BIG BORDER TAX.