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.

 

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

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: seeker1963

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?


Nepotism is wrong period! But why all of a sudden is it an atrocious act because it is Trump?



LBJ passed a federal law in 1967, responding to JFK appointing his Brother...making it illegal...with broad support from both parties.

King Trump doesn't think laws apply to him.


If you follow more than than CNN and other left wing sources you'd know that Trump talked about this in some detail. He has been working with a legal team to ensure Kushner's appt is allowed. So, yeah, he does think the laws apply to him and if Kushner gets appointed, I'm inclined to go with his legal teams determination as opposed to your interpretation of a 1967 law.




posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Didn't Obama advise Trump not to attempt to run the White House like a family business?

I guess that piece of advice was just ignored.

Trump, will be Trump.

I wonder, do these family members have to release their tax returns, or do they get the same exemption from financial scrutiny as the President?

Hm....



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Let's be fair. It's not like the Congress won't overturn this law. So, Trump and his son-in-law both turn their companies over to Ivanka. She more or less acts as a launderer for that money. At the same time the son-in-law also takes his government salary. I won't surprised if Trump does the same as well. Despite his claim that he won't take his Presidential salary, we won't know if that's the case until 2018. At which point most people will have forgot he ever said such a thing/not care he said such a thing.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if all the billionaires he's appointing aren't playing a similar con job.


Nice fantasy post. Maybe you should start a thread about it in the dreams and predictions section.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Didn't Obama advise Trump not to attempt to run the White House like a family business?

I guess that piece of advice was just ignored.

Trump, will be Trump.

I wonder, do these family members have to release their tax returns, or do they get the same exemption from financial scrutiny as the President?

Hm....


Sounds like good sense to ignore any advice given by Obama. He made such a mess of things. Why would his advice be valuable?



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: seeker1963

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?


Nepotism is wrong period! But why all of a sudden is it an atrocious act because it is Trump?



LBJ passed a federal law in 1967, responding to JFK appointing his Brother...making it illegal...with broad support from both parties.

King Trump doesn't think laws apply to him.


WTF does LBJ have to do with this conversation?

Another convenient deflection?


LBJ was the one that sponsored the law back in 1967 banning Nepotism from the WH.

The law that majorities in both houses passed.

The law that Trump now plans on "testing" by appointing his Son-In-Law to a WH position.

Let me know if that clears it up.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: network dude

How is Trump going to do this legally? How is he alone going to say who can buy and who can sell? How is he alone able to move markets with a tweet? What if the promises he made to the CEO's congress won't go along with, then what? A businessman is doing the job all right, selling the constitution.



www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: Byrd
How good of an advisor to the president does anyone think he will be? I guess it doesn't matter because Donald don't need no advise since he's the man! LOL
I sure am glad weed is legal in my home state because I don't think alcohol is going to cut it this time.


Seems to be well respected and he's also very successful in his own right.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: seeker1963

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?


Nepotism is wrong period! But why all of a sudden is it an atrocious act because it is Trump?



LBJ passed a federal law in 1967, responding to JFK appointing his Brother...making it illegal...with broad support from both parties.

King Trump doesn't think laws apply to him.


WTF does LBJ have to do with this conversation?

Another convenient deflection?


LBJ was the one that sponsored the law back in 1967 banning Nepotism from the WH.

The law that majorities in both houses passed.

The law that Trump now plans on "testing" by appointing his Son-In-Law to a WH position.

Let me know if that clears it up.


This was from November last year:

When Kushner was spotted taking a walk with President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on Thursday—the same day that Trump and Obama met for the first time—the sighting quickly led to rumors that Kushner wants a job in the White House.

According to the Wall Street Journal, he is talking to lawyers about possible roles and has reportedly expressed a willingness to stop receiving income from his own real estate company if it proves to be a conflict of interest. But at least one federal law limits the types of jobs that Trump could give to his children and even Kushner, who all count as relatives under The Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute.

According to that law, “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.” Violators are “not entitled to pay.”

This provision went into effect six years after John F. Kennedy made his brother Robert F. Kennedy the U.S. Attorney General in 1961, so it has been nicknamed the “Bobby Kennedy Law.” (JFK’s brother-in-law Sergeant Shriver also ran the Peace Corps.)

The Nation blasted the appointment as “the greatest example of nepotism this land has ever seen,” while Newsweek called it a “travesty of justice.” Irresponsible, said a New York Times editorial: “It is simply not good enough to name a bright young political manager, no matter how bright or how young or how personally loyal, to a major post in government.”

The President would shrug off criticism by joking, “I can’t see that it’s wrong to give him a little legal experience before he goes out to practice law.” (my edit : Gotta love JFK)

It is often reported that Robert Kennedy’s appointment was the reason for the statute — and some historians believe it was added to the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967 at the request of President Lyndon B. Johnson, who used to call RFK a “snot-nosed son of a bitch.”

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. For instance, a congressman’s wife was a staff assistant on her husband’s subcommittee, while two congressman essentially traded their kids. “[A]n applicant has to only mention his or her widely recognized surname to get a job,” the article said. Though a “substantial number of those hired” in that category were merely summer interns, others were staff members who went to great lengths to conceal their relationships with representatives.

Legal experts are divided on how to apply this anti-nepotism statute. Some claim U.S. Code Title 3 gives Trump some leeway in tapping people — and possibly family members — to “serve at the pleasure of the president” on the White House staff, because the anti-nepotism law applies to federal agencies and not the White House. Others say Kushner could serve in the White House if he is not paid.

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is well-acquainted with this statute, since many accused her husband, Bill Clinton, of violating it when he made her chair of a health reform task force when he was President. But in March 1993, a federal appeals court ruled that she was a “de facto” federal official on her own merit, arguing that there was “a longstanding tradition of public service by First Ladies…who have acted (albeit in the background) as advisers and personal representatives of their husbands.” “[T]he Arkansas Governor casually points to his wife in the easy chair next to him,” noted TIME’s 1992 “Man of the Year” feature on Bill Clinton, “when asked who will be the Bobby Kennedy of his Administration.”


Doesn't seem like a big deal... and like I said, his lawyers will make sure all is well. I think you can relax.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
What if Hillary won ?

Bill or Chelsea wouldn't got appointed something ?

Chelsea's hubby ?

C'mon man...


Bill was gonna run the economy she said.

Chelsea was already getting classified info when she was SoS.

That Indian guy bought his way onto a nuke panel or something.

So hypocritical the left is.




posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Didn't Obama advise Trump not to attempt to run the White House like a family business?

I guess that piece of advice was just ignored.

Trump, will be Trump.

I wonder, do these family members have to release their tax returns, or do they get the same exemption from financial scrutiny as the President?

Hm....


The wealthy pay most of the taxes anyway.

Why not get the 47% that don't pay taxes to pay taxes, right?

Plenty of money to be given out if they do pay.

Cut their free money buy 5 bucks a month and watch the money grow to give more people free money!!






posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
In a country where we elect the son of a former president and quite nearly the wife of a former president, how does THIS infuriate or surprise anyone?



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Didn't Obama advise Trump not to attempt to run the White House like a family business?

I guess that piece of advice was just ignored.

Trump, will be Trump.

I wonder, do these family members have to release their tax returns, or do they get the same exemption from financial scrutiny as the President?

Hm....


Sounds like good sense to ignore any advice given by Obama. He made such a mess of things. Why would his advice be valuable?



I know, right?!

Lol!




posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: Byrd
How good of an advisor to the president does anyone think he will be? I guess it doesn't matter because Donald don't need no advise since he's the man! LOL
I sure am glad weed is legal in my home state because I don't think alcohol is going to cut it this time.


Seems to be well respected and he's also very successful in his own right.


As Stewart/Varney used to say, or was it John Houseman, "we make money the old fashioned way, we EARN it"




posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
If you think about how successful Trump was for decades with his family backing him up, this makes total sense.
They worked well together. They get things done. They trust each other.
I think it will be a benefit to our country if Trump has the people behind him that he can count on.

Kushner is a smart man, and I have no doubt that he has been selected because he is the best man for the job.
It is not like the kind of nepotism where you put a relative on the payroll to make money as a favor to them.


And yes, Hillary planned to put Bill in charge of the economy.
www.nytimes.com...
The problem with that was not that he was her husband. The problem was that Bill already served his 8 years, and putting him in charge again would have been almost an extension of his presidency.
I did not hear democrats complaining about that plan though.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: whyamIhere

The president can't create jobs. You should look to your local representative why there are no jobs in your state and area. The president can sign law presented to him. I just don't understand how you believe Trump installing his family in the government head will create jobs. Picking winners and losers with special favors is not policy.



Have you even watched the news today ?

Trump got the Owner of Ali-Baba to promise 1 million new jobs.

American jobs. We need jobs to offset people sponging of us.


So throwing some hypothetical jobs at the public makes it ok for the president to pick and choose which laws to follow? Good to know.

Trump hasn't created ####, he hasn't even been sworn in yet. The irony isn't lost on me that when the news reports the Ali-Baba thing they're telling the truth, but its all "fake news" when its critical of him.



I am going to thoroughly enjoy the next 8 years.

Watching everything Obama did get erased.

Going to love watching America's renewal.


Trump told you he was going to do that, right?



Obama said the same thing.

He lied and let Hillary run an auction with our foreign policy.

He lied about Obamacare.

I guess that was OK, cause it was your guy.

The adults now have the wheel...Better hold on.

So Obama said the same thing and you still don't get it? Seriously?

I see dark times for anyone who holds on to Trump as the torch bearer of their integrity and what they think of as change for this country.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

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.
...
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.



I think you missed this:
House Republicans drop ethics office overhaul after Trump criticism


House Republicans on Tuesday abruptly dropped a proposal seeking controversial changes to the Office of Congressional Ethics after President-elect Donald Trump criticized the plan, as the 115th Congress opened on a contentious note.
...
But GOP leaders worked quickly to resolve the dispute with Trump after he challenged fellow Republicans Tuesday morning on the ethics office plan. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., held a short meeting and moved to pull the language.


Trump stood up to the GOP to get them to stop that idea.
I would say that is a pretty good sign that he plans to hold up to his promise to drain the swamp.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

Um...did I miss the damn inauguration?


The new congress is already there and Trump has being doing a lot to stay in the spotlight. I can not remember a President Elect that has stuck their nose into politics as much as Trump and his team.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Nepotism law says close relatives cannot be appointed to secretaries or directors or administrators or the general attorney. They are allowed as advisors which are not official positions.

I'm not sure if son in law goes under close relative.
edit on 9-1-2017 by BigTrumpFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Trump presidency looks like it will be the slimiest swampiest politics in US history the closer we get to his enthronement.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
This is the dumbest made up controversy the left has come up with about Trump. Kushner was one of the main people running Trump's incredibly successful campaign, why on Earth shouldn't he be an advisor? Seriously, what is the controversy, that someone who is talented and trusted by Trump advise him? The left is so incredibly desperate it's embarrassing. I mean, comparing this to North Korea or monarch dynasties? Wow, delusion doesn't even begin to describe it.
edit on 9-1-2017 by TruMcCarthy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join