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

[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.

 

[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.

LOL. She has a conflict of interest between her unpaid post versus her unpaid job. Hang her!

The sheer stupidity of these people is astonishing, ain't it.

You should really be more careful about who you call stupid. I’m right on this one.

Ivanka Trump will become a federal employee as part of unpaid White House role

The arrangement raises ethics concerns, but the first daughter swears to abide by ethics restrictions.

www.politico.com

You guys are a bunch of idiots.

Again, that argument would work ... if ... Goya paid her. But they didn't. She got no benefit.

Not like Hunter who you defend to hell and back

Well at least we can move on from "she's not an employee". Read the law in question. Posted just above.

 

[hjmick]

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

Good, fire her, then she can "find something new" just like the 18 million unemployed workers she was talking to the other day...

Of course I'm sure daddy will hook her up with something, so no worries...

OMG it's funny when Hunter sycophants say that. You have no sense of your own hypocrisy at all

Hunter?

You don't know what I'm referring to regarding "daddy will hook her up" and Hunter?????

Go back and read my now edited post. It occurred to me seconds after I hit "Post Reply" who it was you were referring to... My initial confusion stemmed from the fact that I do not like nor do I support Biden, so it didn't register.

If the topic of this thread was Hunter Biden, which it isn't, my derision for him would fall into a similar vein...

 

[kaz]

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.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

 

[kaz]

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.

LOL. She has a conflict of interest between her unpaid post versus her unpaid job. Hang her!

The sheer stupidity of these people is astonishing, ain't it.

You should really be more careful about who you call stupid. I’m right on this one.

Ivanka Trump will become a federal employee as part of unpaid White House role

The arrangement raises ethics concerns, but the first daughter swears to abide by ethics restrictions.

www.politico.com

You guys are a bunch of idiots.

Again, that argument would work ... if ... Goya paid her. But they didn't. She got no benefit.

Not like Hunter who you defend to hell and back

Well at least we can move on from "she's not an employee". Read the law in question. Posted just above.

She's an unpaid employee who got no benefit from Goya. That is what I specifically kept arguing. I've said all along if she were an unpaid employee and she were paid by Goya I would have a problem with it.

You have nothing

 

[Meister]

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

/----/ Ivanka is a private citizen, but Obozo was president when he endorsed the Chevy Volt. Watch: Six Years Ago Obama Promised to Buy a Chevy Volt. Now It Is Dead

Just to note.........nameplates come and go. Now it's the Bolt.

2020 Chevy Bolt EV | Affordable All Electric Car

Did you buy one? Is it affordable for those in poverty?
We both know the answer to both of those questions, don't we?

 

[kaz]

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

Good, fire her, then she can "find something new" just like the 18 million unemployed workers she was talking to the other day...

Of course I'm sure daddy will hook her up with something, so no worries...

OMG it's funny when Hunter sycophants say that. You have no sense of your own hypocrisy at all

Hunter?

You don't know what I'm referring to regarding "daddy will hook her up" and Hunter?????

Go back and read my now edited post. It occurred to me seconds after I hit "Post Reply" who it was you were referring to... My initial confusion stemmed from the fact that I do not like nor do I support Biden, so it didn't register.

If the topic of this thread was Hunter Biden, which it isn't, my derision for him would fall into a similar vein...

Fair enough. But the leftists on the board attacking Ivanka are totaly hypocrites over that.

Which makes Hunter completely topical since it goes to the sincerity of the accusation. Obviously it's not sincere for those who are fine with what Hunter did. He made millions. Ivanka made nothing. Which is in your case as well going to make it hard to show the benefit she got

 

[pknopp]

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

/----/ Ivanka is a private citizen, but Obozo was president when he endorsed the Chevy Volt. Watch: Six Years Ago Obama Promised to Buy a Chevy Volt. Now It Is Dead

Just to note.........nameplates come and go. Now it's the Bolt.

2020 Chevy Bolt EV | Affordable All Electric Car

Did you buy one? Is it affordable for those in poverty?
We both know the answer to both of those questions, don't we?

Did I buy one? No, I bought a Ford C-Max plug in hybrid though.

No idea what that has to do with what I noted though.

 

[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'

 

[justoffal]

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

It doesn't matter..... The left's attack on Goya was very stupid. In one fel swoop
They managed to offend 80% of the Latino voting populace in this nation.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

 

[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

You guys are desperate. LOL

 

[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.

 

[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.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

No the law you posted....it says exactly the opposite.


§ 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.

 

[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,

 

[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.

Right. She didn't gain. That's the point I keep making. Do you understand Goya didn't pay her? You don't, do you?

Hunter on the other hand got his daddy to redirect millions of dollars his way and you don't give a shit

The law specifically says they're not allowed to endorse any product regardless of personal gain.

No it doesn't. Read it for yourself.


§ 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.

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

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[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.

Where does the law exclude the President?

 

[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.