Jared & Ivanka Made $82 Million in 2017 While WH Advisers

second sight said:
At this pace they might be able to catch the clintons one day
Click to expand...
Can't say that will bother me. At least they're not murdering people every other week and Ivanka is actually watchable.
 
 
I'm confused. If people who own businesses or rental property go to Washington to help an administration. Should they not get any returns from those businesses or rental properties while they are at the WH?
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Do they though? If they don't actually work for the government then are any laws being broken?
Click to expand...
Jared does have the title "senior advisor" and Ivanka is a "special white house assistant" or more specific "assistant to the president" which is basically a made up title and has no clear guidelines or responsibilities for such a job, technically any senior advisor or secretary is an "assistant to the president".
They both are unpaid, but both were subject to submitting their financial statements and completing the security check for the their security clearances, which we all know Jared had lost for a while but recently got back without any explanation. The fact they don't get a paycheck was a cute way to get around the anti-nepotism law of 1967, so the fact that they don't collect a check isn't exactly the altruistic act they try to present it as.

Not collecting a check doesn't necessarily mean they don't work for the government, they use government travel, have government provided offices, staff and security. The perform duties in official capacities for the government.
So that argument doesn't hold water.
 
SBJJ said:
I'm confused. If people who own businesses or rental property go to Washington to help an administration. Should they not get any returns from those businesses or rental properties while they are at the WH?
Click to expand...

Traditionally, presidents have placed their assets in a blind trust to make it impossible to bribe them and haven't hired advisers who are their children who have massive conflicts of interest.

It seems like every day, Trump supporters see their standards erode a little more--even when you thought they couldn't go any further.
 
Last edited:
Darkballs said:
It's genuinely impressive to type that much and dodge every question asked of you.
Click to expand...

Really? Not one did I answer? What was important that I missed?



Jack V Savage said:
So you're completely fine with this as long as no law is broken. This is obviously a new position for you, and we thus still have a rather striking and rapid lowering of standards. What is the reason for that?



Your recollection is false so it's not funny at all. What you'll see is that I think it's nuts when people allege crimes because there is no way Clinton could actually get away with a crime considering the level of scrutiny she's under. But note that before I posted in here, you chose to defend a rather stunning level of corruption. So trying to turn it around on me is just a deflection for your incredible 180 on ethics. And the attempt to compare direct payments to a member of the president's family to raising money for a charity is also an obviously ridiculous defense. Plus, if you think it's OK to take massive personal payouts in exchange for influence, surely you must think that raising money for a charity is even more OK, and yet I do not recall you defending Clinton against partisan attacks on that basis.



So earlier in this same post you denied that you're trying to brush it off. Obviously, this is something that is totally OK with you. I can't understand why, and apparently you will not say (does that reluctance indicate a guilty conscience about the depths you have to stoop to defend Trump?). You also haven't provided an alternate explanation for your incredible change of heart.
Click to expand...

Fine with what exactly? Simply making money isn't unethical. All I'm asking is what's specifically going on that's a problem and you've done nothing but misrepresent my ethics. Boring.



SMillard said:
Jared does have the title "senior advisor" and Ivanka is a "special white house assistant" or more specific "assistant to the president" which is basically a made up title and has no clear guidelines or responsibilities for such a job, technically any senior advisor or secretary is an "assistant to the president".
They both are unpaid, but both were subject to submitting their financial statements and completing the security check for the their security clearances, which we all know Jared had lost for a while but recently got back without any explanation. The fact they don't get a paycheck was a cute way to get around the anti-nepotism law of 1967, so the fact that they don't collect a check isn't exactly the altruistic act they try to present it as.

Not collecting a check doesn't necessarily mean they don't work for the government, they use government travel, have government provided offices, staff and security. The perform duties in official capacities for the government.
So that argument doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

I guess no paycheck does hold water to some degree since you just claimed it keeps them from running afoul of some anti-nepotism law.

Did people expect these rich fucks to all the sudden stop making money? Is there evidence of bribery? Don't lobbyists take money to influence policy?
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
I guess no paycheck does hold water to some degree since you just claimed it keeps them from running afoul of some anti-nepotism law.

Did people expect these rich fucks to all the sudden stop making money? Is there evidence of bribery? Don't lobbyists take money to influence policy?
Click to expand...
That's the crux of it, you cannot use your position in government to make monetary gain, regardless if you take a paycheck or not. You are also supposed to divest from your corporate holdings, which is why Trump himself said he was putting Jr and Eric in charge, we all know it's a sham (as it would be with any person not just Trump, imagine if say Bill Gates became president and said he was turning the company over to his wife, everyone would know it was just a gesture of optics).

The anti-nepotism law was basically done because there was issue with Bobby Kennedy being the attorney general under JFK, a lot of people had concern. Which I can understand, although it did work out fairly well and Bobby was poised to be the next (and from all accounts a good) president, but we'll never know. That being said, I'd still have reservations about it happening again even knowing what I know.

As far as lobbyists taking money for political influence, yes they do. Now here's the issue, which is a similar issue that Michael Cohen is running into, you need to register as a lobbyist. There's nothing saying you can't make money as an influencer but you need to register and you can't have an active job in the administration. Oddly, if Michael Cohen had just registered as a lobbyist he wouldn't be facing as many problems as he is.

Additionally some of the chatter especially from the Arab countries about Jared's inquiries regarding funds, the fact that Jared's own sister initially used Jared's image and statements regarding a quick track to residency and US citizenship for Chinese investors in one of their properties also muddies the water about the legality.
 
SMillard said:
That's the crux of it, you cannot use your position in government to make monetary gain, regardless if you take a paycheck or not. You are also supposed to divest from your corporate holdings, which is why Trump himself said he was putting Jr and Eric in charge, we all know it's a sham (as it would be with any person not just Trump, imagine if say Bill Gates became president and said he was turning the company over to his wife, everyone would know it was just a gesture of optics).

The anti-nepotism law was basically done because there was issue with Bobby Kennedy being the attorney general under JFK, a lot of people had concern. Which I can understand, although it did work out fairly well and Bobby was poised to be the next (and from all accounts a good) president, but we'll never know. That being said, I'd still have reservations about it happening again even knowing what I know.

As far as lobbyists taking money for political influence, yes they do. Now here's the issue, which is a similar issue that Michael Cohen is running into, you need to register as a lobbyist. There's nothing saying you can't make money as an influencer but you need to register and you can't have an active job in the administration. Oddly, if Michael Cohen had just registered as a lobbyist he wouldn't be facing as many problems as he is.

Additionally some of the chatter especially from the Arab countries about Jared's inquiries regarding funds, the fact that Jared's own sister initially used Jared's image and statements regarding a quick track to residency and US citizenship for Chinese investors in one of their properties also muddies the water about the legality.
Click to expand...


Well, hopefully a law was broken and they're prosecuted. I can't say I give a shit if some rich Chinese get special consideration for residency or citizenship. Do you?

Are the taxpayers being defrauded? Is detrimental policy being enacted for personal enrichment? The OP says "critics have expressed concerns". Ok. When someone can flesh that out I'm listening.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Fine with what exactly? Simply making money isn't unethical. All I'm asking is what's specifically going on that's a problem and you've done nothing but misrepresent my ethics. Boring.
Click to expand...

You keep refusing to explain your amazingly rapid change of standards. Given that, you can't blame me for thinking that it's about partisanship. I really can't even imagine what other reason you might have. And you're playing dumb. Obviously they weren't making that kind of money before their dad became president.
 
@Cubo de Sangre has this issue cleaned up amongst the noise of the political hack jobs on here. If there's suspect of a crime, string 'em the fuck up. Otherwise, your butt hurt is showing.
 
Greoric said:
@Cubo de Sangre has this issue cleaned up amongst the noise of the political hack jobs on here. If there's suspect of a crime, string 'em the fuck up. Otherwise, your butt hurt is showing.
Click to expand...

The political hacks are the former libertarians who are now defending gov't corruption. You guys have no standards beyond tribalism.
 
Jack V Savage said:
The political hacks are the former libertarians who are now defending gov't corruption. You guys have no standards beyond tribalism.
Click to expand...

I don't know about any body being a former libertarian, but you should listen out for those copter blades.
 
Greoric said:
Talk to me. You bringing it with that pitchfork of yours?
Click to expand...

Don't know what you're talking about. You've lately gone full on fascist, right? Advocating murder to prevent free speech. You just discredit your own movement with that, and you will lose.

I believe in democratic gov't with protection of rights.
 
Remember when people on the right were freaking out over the financial irresponsibility of the Clintons for having so much debt in the White House?

I remember. They left millions in debt. Now that has been hysterically retconned into them swindling and making all kinds of money in office. Ah, brains. Brains suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,948
Messages
55,456,596
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top