Thursday, July 16, 2020

Because they can


Il Douche strikes again.
The photo, taken from the Oval Office, was promoted on the president's Instagram account a day after Ivanka Trump, a senior White House adviser, shared a picture of herself with a can of Goya beans.

[...]

The message appeared to be show of support from Ivanka Trump following the backlash the CEO of Goya Foods, Robert Unanue, faced after publicly praising the president at a White House event last week. But it quickly prompted criticism of its own, as well as accusations that the senior White House aide was violating ethics laws by using her official capacity to endorse a private product.

  The Hill


Walter Shaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics, also remarked that Ivanka Trump's decision to disclose her title on her personal Twitter account weighed against her when it came to ethics laws. "If you tout the company's product in an obvious response to the backlash the company is facing for the CEO's remarks about your father-president, you knowingly link your account in people's minds to your official activities; you create the appearance of official sanction," Shaub said in a series of tweets.
Why should she care? They never face consequences for their crimes and unethical behaviors.
According to the Justice Department, a federal employee's position should not be used "to coerce; to endorse any product, service or enterprise; or to give the appearance of governmental sanction."
Before that, it says "MAY not". That makes it a prohibited activity, not a suggestion.  On the other hand, it stipulates "for his own private gain or for that of persons or organizations with which he is associated personally."  Since Ivanka is not associated personally with Goya (that we know of) or getting any compensation for the ad, she's probably clear of any charges that could have her lose her job (as if they would fire her for anything).  If they have stock in Goya, that's another story.  Either way, it's tacky and Trumpy, and "SHOULD not" be done, even according to the DOJ.  I wonder why that one sentence uses the word "should" when the others use "may".  A little suspicious.




UPDATE:



No comments: