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.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra
gee and I was told here on ats only trump supporters fell for that"fake news".
So now is she who lost to The Donald going to go after the dangerous lie spreading misinforming cnn?
originally posted by: omniEther
This story is fake, a contributor to politico was fired for retweeting it and suggesting that Trump was ******* his daughter
www.thegatewaypundit.com...
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Kettu
Is she moving into the White House? Yes or no?
No. She is not.
Pay attention.
originally posted by: JacKatMtn
Ivanka is going to be working to help families with child care costs amongst other battles to try and keep families together.....
She's so friggin evil...
originally posted by: reldra
She is on the lease with her father for the DC post office hotel...the lease being held by the US government. A thing not allowed for Trump, nor for her.
A spokeswoman for the G.S.A. came right back and said no, it hadn’t.
“GSA does not have a position that the lease provision requires the President-elect to divest of his financial interests. We can make no definitive statement at this time about what would constitute a breach of the agreement, and to do so now would be premature. In fact, no determination regarding the Old Post Office can be completed until the full circumstances surrounding the President-elect’s business arrangements have been finalized and he has assumed office.”
Link.
originally posted by: reldra
This is a big mess.
Conflict of interest disclosure reports filed by top federal officials were removed from public view by the Obama administration in recent months, a move that government transparency and accountability advocates condemn as a major setback.
The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) reports are the primary tool that watchdog journalists, political activists and interested voters can use to guard against presidential appointees using their positions to enrich themselves or others.
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: theantediluvian
Don't be so hard on yourself buddy. Read the portion of my post that you quoted where it said the word mostly, as in you mostly don't fit in that category.
I wasn't speaking about you. I actually think you're better than that.
And I've even been known to star some of your posts, even if they were attacking me, but only because I thought you argued your point well.
But now that I think of it, maybe all my love is just going unappreciated and I should just stop.
originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: reldra
The whole issue bothers me greatly.
She's in control of his businesses (or will be or is supposed to be) and she's making policy...that happens to be favorable to the businesses. And then she's going to open an office in the White House.
This really looks like Trump is not divesting himself of anything and that Russian investors and everyone else who wants his ear can show up on his side door with a billion dollar package and push to get the deals they want. What's also troubling is that the Republicans (who once made Jimmy Carter sell his farm because they feared conflict of interests) are saying nothing about this.
It'll be the rule of fat cats and special interests - Tammany Hall, all over again.
originally posted by: MayRenee
a reply to: reldra
It is getting weirder by the day. I feel that this move is inappropriate. She is supposed to be devoting herself to his financial interests, not be involved with his presidency. As a grown and married woman, her moving into the whitehouse first lady's quarters, is just bizarre. Does she live at home with her daddy? No! Will she be an advisor or cabinet member? She is supposed to be busy with his businesses! I seriously feel like we are watching a live real life version of Idiocracy.
originally posted by: ksiezyc
If this is false why do we persist in discussing it? And why is this not in the hoax bin already?
originally posted by: projectvxn
Why is this a problem?
originally posted by: Ameilia
originally posted by: ksiezyc
If this is false why do we persist in discussing it? And why is this not in the hoax bin already?
I can't figure out why it hasn't been moved to Hoax yet. It is clearly fake and that was discovered early on, yet the thread persists for pages.