WaPo: Donald Trump's 'first attempt to ignore the law'

Washington Post ^ | January 10, 2017 | Aaron Blake

[Zakeet]

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.

[Zakeet]

The bad old Donald is not supposed to do what the Rats have done for years ...

[Be Careful]

How about Nancy Pelosi’s husband’s enrichment off of her legislation.....

[apillar]

It's amazing how the liberal media start caring about the law when a Republican is elected. I'm guessing if this was Obama, not a peep would be heard....

[Herman Ball]

JFK hired brother Robert!

[Crucial]

What was Obama’s first act of ignoring the law? I don’t know because the list is a mile long.

[D Rider]

How many Tsars is Trump proposing? Obama had a Tsar for about everything. (Tsars are made up positions that do not require Senate confirmation)

[TexasGator]

Before the 1967 law.

[stylin19a]

which was the reason for the 19697 law.

It seems Hillary was tested against it (Hillarycare) without a resolution

[PCPOET7]

unfortunately it is an example that does not work because that was 1964 and the law the demns are claimthat is being broken was passed in 1967.

[ctdonath2]

Relevant court case, which quotes the law specifying (in great detail) who the prohibition applies to: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/997/997.F2d.898.93-5092.93-5086.html

AFAIK, the President’s advisors are _not_ addressed by the law; they are personally chosen, not seated according law nor executive order.

[UCANSEE2]

[1Old Pro]

Sorry you lib sore loser crybaby whiners, Jared will be in the WH.

[Alberta's Child]

The 1967 anti-nepotism law has a huge loophole if the appointee in question is not paid for his service. I would assume this would be the case with Kushner.

The bigger issue here is that the political optics are awful -- especially when you consider that Kushner has retained JAMIE GORELICK as his lawyer to navigate through the Federal legal and ethical issues.

[danaterry]

Which is why the law was passed.

[DouglasKC]

omg nepotism is rampant in Washington...it’s incestuous...and they’re worried about this??

[UCANSEE2]

President Bush appointed his father to numerous positions with the Federal government.

[UCANSEE2]

omg nepotism is rampant in Washington...it’s incestuous

And well documented.

[DesertRhino]

JFK and Bobby?? Bill Clinton putting Hillary in charge of healthcare legislation? Half the congressional staff being family members?

Go for it.

[chris37]

Stopped reading at “W”.

[Alberta's Child]

From what I understand, the only relevant issue for the anti-nepotism law is whether or not the person is paid for the role.

There's a difference between having someone involved in an innocuous advisory capacity and having them in a formal position. In Kushner's case, I suspect there's a complicated legal issue because the role he will fill -- regardless of whether or not he's paid -- may require security clearances.