Donald Trumps first attempt to ignore the law

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Donald Trump’s ‘first attempt to ignore the law’

By Aaron Blake

@aaronblake

January 10 at 7:00 AM

President-elect Donald Trump intends to name his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a senior adviser to his White House — a move that would put to the test a 1967 anti-nepotism law and provide a Trump White House already rife with ethical questions a bona fide legal showdown.

In fact, this amounts to Trump's "first attempt to ignore the law," according to Washington University government ethics expert Kathleen Clark. And she says it has huge implications not just for Kushner, but for the rest of his presidency.

I spoke with Clark about anti-nepotism laws, why they exist, and how Kushner and Trump might get around this particular one. Our conversation is below, lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

WAPO: I think a casual observer may wonder why Trump’s son-in-law serving in his administration is a big deal. Why do such anti-nepotism laws exist, and why is nepotism a problem?

CLARK: We have anti-nepotism laws in the federal government and in lots of state governments, because the practice of hiring relatives undermines public confidence that the government official is actually finding best person for the job. What are the chances that the best person for the job just happens to be a relative, right? In addition to the problem of public confidence, hiring a relative also causes problems within the government organization. It can undermine the morale of government officials. It can cause confusion about what the lines of authority are; in other words, the relative may have a particular title, but many may perceive the relative’s role as even more important than the title would suggest. It may be very difficult to say no to the president’s son-in-law. It may be very difficult to say, ‘That’s a bad idea’ to the president’s son-in-law, in a way it would be easier to say those things to someone whom the president hired but isn’t related to — someone who’s not the father of his grandchild or grandchildren.

@clarkkathleen

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Beyond the obvious, what this conflict of interest:

Trump makes his SIL his senior advisor. SIL and daughter, Ivanka, have marital conflict, leading to divorce. How does the POTUS keep the professional from being inevitably intertwined with the personal? Even if Jared leaves as a result, he leaves with a lot of information that Trump would want to keep secret.

[Generator]

2. Best person for the job-what a laugh riot

All Trump cares about is who is loyal to him. That is all. Literally all. He is a sociopath that is gonna be a dictator. Let's stop mincing words and tell the truth.

[TexasTowelie]

3. It's okay,

Jeff Sessions said he would be fair if he becomes AG and defy Trump if necessary.

[Volaris]

12. Yeah. Like if trump said we should expand the voting rights act.

I would bet like hell he would defy the President.

[CousinIT]

4. STILL the question is: WHO IS GOING TO STOP HIM?

Answer seems to be: Nobody.

So what the law or constitution say are irrelevant. It's just paper when it's not enforced.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. "I think a casual observer may wonder why ..."

Yes I do wonder why.

[smirkymonkey]

6. A completely inexperienced, corrupt, deranged idiot chooses another completely inexperienced,

corrupt, not-quite-so-deranged person of limited intelligence as his senior adviser. This cannot turn out well.

I don't think DJT wants anyone around who is smart enough or sane enough to know just how stupid and crazy he really is.

[yagotme]

7. "(f)irst attempt to ignore the law,"

Who's not paying attention again???

[Mr.Bill]

14. First thing I thought of.

Donald Trump has been ignoring the law for 45 years.

[RealityChik]

8. JFK set the precedent when...

His brother, Bobby, became Attorney General.

Don't think there's much we can legally do about Jared Kushner just yet. We'll have to wait for him to f* something up. That shouldn't be hard for him.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

10. which resulted in....

5 U.S. Code § 3110 - Employment of relatives; restrictions

(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) “agency” means—
(A) an Executive agency;

(B) an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch;

(C) an office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch; and

(D) the government of the District of Columbia;

(2) “public official” means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress), a member of the uniformed service, an employee and any other individual, in whom is vested the authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals, or to recommend individuals for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in connection with employment in an agency; and

(3) “relative” means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.

(b) A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

(c) An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced.

(d) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations authorizing the temporary employment, in the event of emergencies resulting from natural disasters or similar unforeseen events or circumstances, of individuals whose employment would otherwise be prohibited by this section.

(e) This section shall not be construed to prohibit the appointment of an individual who is a preference eligible in any case in which the passing over of that individual on a certificate of eligibles furnished under section 3317(a) of this title will result in the selection for appointment of an individual who is not a preference eligible.

(Added Pub. L. 90–206, title II, § 221(a), Dec. 16, 1967, 81 Stat. 640; amended Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, § 906(a)(2), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1224.)

[bettyellen]

13. Nope- the laws were changed because of that appointment

[IronLionZion]

16. That's why they passed the law

you know the Bushes would have gladly appointed their family members to positions if they could.

[RealityChik]

17. There is an exception to this, thanks to the Clintons...

Trump is not breaking the nepotism law. As long as it's for a White House position, it is allowed. It's too complex for me to get my head around, but apparently the courts allowed Hillary to head up a task force for healthcare reform because she reported directly to Bill, the president and did not involve any of the 3 branches of the fed outside of the White House.

Here's a link to the article I found:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/thanks-to-the-clintons-its-perfectly-legal-for-jared-kushner-to-be-senior-white-house-advisor/

What a shame. The presidency just became royalty. Instead of one Trump to f* up the country, now we get at least three more Trumps to do it with him.

[niyad]

9. his FIRST attempt????? righhhhhhht

[Zoonart]

11. It's Good To be King! (remix)

[Thor_MN]

15. Doesn't matter if he takes a salary or not, if he is advising Trumplethinskin,

he is a government employee who has to complete an ethics review. That's IF they waive the anti-nepotism laws.

No way should he be allowed to advise on any topic that could benefit him financially.