Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 310: Kanye Believe It?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Every federal employee I actually know is far more concerned about violating ethical restrictions than Ivanka Trump is

The "she's not paid" argument doesn't even really track, since if she has used any government resources whatsoever, she's in use of government funds. If she has ever been on Air Force One, if she has ever had security, if she has used a stapler in the White House, she has been in use of government funds. Her not taking a personal paycheck doesn't change that.

---

Also, like I said, Goya is obviously a Trump donor

Ivanka literally has an office in the West Wing of the White House.

Shes an employee.

---

This may be splitting hairs here but are the OGE Regulations (prohibiting endorsement of products/services) actually "laws" here in a crime sense? By contrast with the Hatch Act (which covers political speech by federal employees) which was passed by Congress I'm not sure the ethics regulations actually carry any kind of criminal penalty or implication.

I mean, to be fair, Conway has been found to have violated both and the administration has either ignored or outright defied any enforcement - and the offices charged with investigating (and thus reporting these findings) have no enforcement power themselves - so it's understand why people might conflate the too. But if you want to use her case as an example you'd want to look at the example where she violated this regulation (like endorsing the clothing line back in 2017) rather than her multiple Hatch Act violations (which were news more recently though still about a year ago)

To be clear, this Goya thing is super obviously a violation of the ethics regulations I just don't know if that actually qualifies as a crime instead of "merely" grounds for discipline/termination.

or maybe it's 2 am and i'm tired and shouldn't be trying to think and am being super dumb right now idk

---

StealThisSheen posted...

The "she's not paid" argument doesn't even really track, since if she has used any government resources whatsoever, she's in use of government funds. If she has ever been on Air Force One, if she has ever had security, if she has used a stapler in the White House, she has been in use of government funds. Her not taking a personal paycheck doesn't change that.

I am not arguing anything. I am asking if she is considered to have a public office. We already know that the misuse of government funding doesn't work her because she is unpaid. So it comes down to public office. Can she make sovereign decisions over things or not? Or can she just give the president advice?

End of the day, you have to understand that liberals are gonna be like "zomg she broke the law nom nom nom" and conservatives are gonna be like "she did nothing wrong nom nom nom".

So it comes down to the actual way the law is applied. Since Conway was such a recent example we can draw upon it. We know the first complaint doesn't apply because she is unpaid.

So it comes down to does she have public office she used for private gain.

I am interested in what public office means. From what I read it is

A.
1
A position of authority or service involving responsibility to the public, especially within the government.

Or
B
A position or occupation established by law or by the act of a government body, for the purpose of exercising the authority of the government in the service of the public.

Or even
C
Legal Definition of public office
: an office created by a constitution or legislative act, having a definite tenure, and involving the power to carry out some governmental function

So the question is what is meant by public office legally in regards to this.

I mean, obviously nothing will come up of this before Trump loses the election so it doesn't matter too much from a her getting a slap on the wrist or some other scenario.

But, it is interesting to consider what it means to be holding a public office in regards to this.

---

Forget any legal issues

The actual post she made is just the height of disingenuousness so much so that its laughable

Yes I totally believe Ivanka Trump buys canned goods at the local grocery and came up with that Spanish translation in good faith
---

I linked you to the regulation in question

I showed you how to find the definition of "employee."

It has nothing to do with "misuse of government funds." The regulation says nothing about that. It literally just says a government employee cannot endorse a product like that.

It's fact that she's a government employee, regardless of pay.

Therefore, she cannot endorse a product like that.

Literally end of story.

It says position OR public office. Harping on the "public office" part is just you looking for reason to deny she did anything wrong.

---

oh my goodness, is someone trying to suggest that Ivanka isn't a WH employee. that's funny as fuck

The point of playing Devil's Advocate is to try not to be demonstrably wrong.

In lighter news, LOTS of meme edits going on in the comments.

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

oh my goodness, is someone trying to suggest that Ivanka isn't a WH employee. that's funny as fuck

Corrik is, I think, conflating the Hatch Act with the Ethics rules and applying its (Hatch Act) standards here despite it not being applicable to the discussion. (That or just riffing this without reading/researching the topic beyond reading the very first paragraph of the linked reg and not reading down to the applicable section and following the in-document links to how these terms are all defined within the scope of the reg)

The Hatch Act makes mentions of paid employees (or appointments) but the OGE regulations very explicitly, as SEP has posted and reiterated at this point, notes that whether the person in question is paid is irrelevant.

As I said Conway has violated both the OGE regulation being discussed and the Hatch Act but they are two very different things meant to deal with two completely different matters - and hence not the same incidents! - and trying to apply the wording of one to the other is just... not how anything works.

---

Stop doing this to yourselves.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

I linked you to the regulation in question

I showed you how to find the definition of "employee."

It has nothing to do with "misuse of government funds." The regulation says nothing about that. It literally just says a government employee cannot endorse a product like that.

It's fact that she's a government employee, regardless of pay.

Therefore, she cannot endorse a product like that.

Literally end of story.

It says position OR public office. Harping on the "public office" part is just you looking for reason to deny she did anything wrong.

I think that is incorrect.

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/unpaid-staff-are-not-employees-under-the-nlra.html

So, again, now that we using Conway's recent example can rule out the first violation complaint (as we already did prior but it was insisted on going back because you think if your mailman tells you there is a sale on pork chops that he is committing an ethics violation somehow).

It comes down to does she hold public office. Which is again what I was interested in knowing if she does or not from a legal aspect.


---

Corrik7 posted...

I think that is incorrect.

No. You're wrong. I literally told you how to find out you're wrong. The regulation literally defines what an employee is, and it explicitly says that is unaffected by pay.

For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President. Status as an employee is unaffected by pay or leave status or, in the case of a special Government employee, by the fact that the individual does not perform official duties on a given day.

You're mixing up a bunch of things.

---

Dark Young Link posted...

The point of playing Devil's Advocate is to try not to be demonstrably wrong.

In lighter news, LOTS of meme edits going on in the comments.

https://twitter.com/Nixon_Tweets/status/1283242897601712129

For some reason that one is my favorite.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

No. You're wrong. I literally told you how to find out you're wrong.

You're mixing up a bunch of things.

I literally linked you to the supreme court ruling of what an employee is considered.

I think you are likely just misunderstanding the use there.

"Status as an employee is unaffected by pay or leave status or, in the case of a special Government employee, by the fact that the individual does not perform official duties on a given day."

Like this for example says even if the employee is on unpaid assignment of any sort (FMLA, suspension, etc) or leave. They are still an employee. Hence it says "status AS AN EMPLOYEE".

I am sure redsox can come in and tell you what that means in legal jargon is NOT what you think it means. She has no status as an employee affected by such things because she is not an employee by literal supreme court ruling on the subject because she is unpaid staff.

I think you want that to say something other than it says. I literally linked you the supreme court ruling, dude.

---

That said, I am super curious what "Special government Employee" means. Lol. Sounds like a m-f worker? Which is weird.

---

According to that ruling, you can't receive benefits, either, which she does. So, uh...

---

Also, your link is about a National Labor Relations Board ruling. The NRLA is only over private sector jobs.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

According to that ruling, you can't receive benefits, either, which she does. So, uh...

You can't be expected to receive benefits yes. Like, she can't work for free with the understanding that someone else will work for free for her down the road in return. It doesn't mean she can't have an office or ride on a plane. Unpaid staffers have their own desks or lockers or use of transportation in companies all the time. She can't be expecting to receive a benefit that has a monetary value down the line. Which, I mean, you could definitely argue she is expecting something, but likely as long as it is not agreed upon specifically it wouldn't infringe on whether she is an employee or not.

She, however, is not an employee.

The question is does she have public office. And, I have no idea because the term seems nowhere clearly defined.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Also, your link is about a National Labor Relations Board ruling. The NRLA is only over private sector jobs.

In Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secy of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985), the Supreme Court applied an economic reality test to determine whether individuals were employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The individuals in this case were held to be employees because they expected to and did receive in-kind benefits for their services, but the Court explained that the FLSA excludes individuals who work without promise or expectation of compensation.

Dude, they used Supreme Court rulings to come to their answer. Like, you gonna do this all day?

---

Corrik7 posted...

You can't be expected to receive benefits yes. Like, she can't work for free with the understanding that someone else will work for free for her down the road in return. It doesn't mean she can't have an office or ride on a plane. Unpaid staffers have their own desks or lockers or use of transportation in companies all the time. She can't be expecting to receive a benefit that has a monetary value down the line. Which, I mean, you could definitely argue she is expecting something, but likely as long as it is not agreed upon specifically it wouldn't infringe on whether she is an employee or not.

She, however, is not an employee.

The question is does she have public office. And, I have no idea because the term seems nowhere clearly defined.

Show me where the link you posted talks about federal jobs. The NRLA is private sector.

She's an employee. They literally announced she's an employee when it happened.

---

The White House says President Trump has a new special assistant on his staff his daughter Ivanka. The announcement comes a week after the president's oldest daughter moved into her own office in the West Wing to work on women's issues.
Her shift from an informal adviser at the White House to an unpaid government employee is small but important. She was already applying for security clearance, had access to classified information and was meeting with world leaders.
But she did not have to abide by ethics rules, which concerned many ethics experts who said it would allow her to skirt some rules and disclosures.
In a statement, she says she was voluntarily complying with all ethics rules, but was aware of the concerns about advising her father in a personal capacity.
"I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees. Throughout this process I have been working closely and in good faith with the White House Counsel and my personal counsel to address the unprecedented nature of my role," she said.

Literally from her own fucking mouth.

She PREVIOUSLY didn't have to abide by rules, but now she does.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Show me where the link you posted talks about federal jobs. The NRLA is private sector.

She's an employee. They literally announced she's an employee when it happened.

Well, the FLSA applies to federal jobs also.

However, I did see this.

"The Department of Labors FLSA regulations do not apply to Federal employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, but do apply to some specific organizations that many people think of as Federal Government agencies. These are: The Postal Service, Tennessee Valley Authority, the Postal Rate Commission, and the Library of Congress."

So, I will dig into it more.

Upon digging into it more, the FLSA regulations on pay and such wouldn't apply to federal employees of the executive branch. Whether an employee or not would not be affected to my knowledge.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Literally from her own fucking mouth.

She PREVIOUSLY didn't have to abide by rules, but now she does.

Well, then it appears she agreed to a special circumstance. Which you were completely oblivious to the entire time you were arguing.

---

It's not a special circumstance.

It's her agreeing to be an employee.

Because a federal employee of the executive is a federal employee of the executive, paid or not.

She wasn't an official employee before, so she didn't have to comply with ethics regulations.

She agreed to become an employee, and so now she does.

There's literally nothing special about that part.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

It's not a special circumstance.

It's her agreeing to be an employee.

Because a federal employee is a federal employee, paid or not.

That is literally untrue and literally proven by me, and literally proven by your article you linked to.

She was "voluntarily" complying with all ethic rules and everyone was concerned if she didn't make that switch (which means she is probably being paid in a benefit or future consideration or such as we discussed before) she wouldn't have to abide by them while in her west wing office as an advisor because she wasn't an employee. Dude, you are arguing against your premise.

---

lmao are you trying to move the goalposts now

I said: "She can't do this because she's an employee."
You said: "She's not an employee."

I am right. That's literally all there is to this argument.

---

So, anyways. Yes, she is a federal employee and has to abide by ethics codes because she voluntarily chose to be a federal employee (likely with expected considerations or compensation down the line). She absolutely could have her role in the government as is and not been a federal employee.

You were arguing the whole time oblivious to the laws and the situation, and just happened to be correct because she volunteered to take a status she didn't have to.

Lol. And I am disingenuous! You even were arguing against supreme courts and shit.

---

lmao you got so owned you're trying to make up anything you can to scrape up any bit of dignity you can find left

Unbelievable. I won this argument so hard with fact after fact after fact, and your arguments just splintered into thousands of pieces. This may have been the biggest debate win in history. It's such a huge fucking win I kinda can't believe it, myself.

Me: Argument A
Corrik: Argument A is wrong, see? ....Oh, shit, Argument A is right. Well, Argument B isn't right.
Me: Argument B is also right.
Corrik: OH SHIT IT IS what do i do what do i do

lmao

---

StealThisSheen posted...

lmao you got so owned you're trying to make up anything you can to scrape up any bit of dignity you can find left

Unbelievable. I won this argument so hard with fact after fact after fact, and your arguments just splintered into thousands of pieces. This may have been the biggest debate win in history. It's such a huge fucking win I kinda can't believe it, myself.

Lmfao. I am not sure you are being serious right now. Everything you argued was absolutely wrong besides her being an employee by reasoning you didn't even realize existed until 2 minutes ago.

Lmfao. Not sure if serious. If that's your biggest win lololololol. You argued wrong employment status. You misread the legal jargon you posted and what it meant. You argued against supreme court rulings. And ended up being right due to a voluntary decision that in the article itself speaks to the concerns they had due to them understanding the laws better than yourself.

Hahahahahaha

---

In fact, honestly, I think I gotta ignore Corrik from now on, guys. I just can't look at his username anymore without feeling the intense amount of shame radiating from it that he's feeling right now, so I guess this will be the last time I argue with him.

---

i am not entirely sure what i have witnessed here

are you satisfied gmun? for visiting this upon us?

---

You can't win an argument against Corrik. By engaging with him you lose by default for wasting your time. Doesn't matter what the actual results are.

Ignoring him is the only decent action anyone can take.

---

i had corrik on ignore but he got a new account and i've been too lazy to add him

---

Corrik7 posted...

Everything you argued was absolutely wrong

What I said:

+She's an employee
That is correct.

+As an employee, she must follow the ethics regulations
Ooh, two in a row!

+Her being unpaid does not change her official status as an employee of the executive.
Is that correct? Survey says... Ding ding ding, absolutely!

+The NRLA doesn't apply to federal employees
Also correct, damn he's good! He's heating up!

+The other ruling you were trying to cite (regarding the FLSA pay regulations) also doesn't apply to federal employees of the executive.
HE'S ON FIRE! Stunningly correct once again!

It looks like everything he said was right, folks! Unbelievable! An owning of this magnitude hasn't been seen in any lifetime! This announcer can't believe it! Surely a performance for the record books!

Goodbye forever, Corrik. Consider this a pity ignore, for I don't want to accidentally destroy you in an argument ever again. I wouldn't want to cause you that kind of suffering.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

+She's an employee

Correct for the wrong reasons. You were unequivocally INCORRECT by law standards until you stumbled upon an article you googled 2 minutes prior that talked about a voluntary agreement to abide by rules and take an employee status when she didn't have to. Which, of course, I didn't know existed either or this would have never existed as an argument. But, for the record, you had zero idea this existed either and were arguing from a completely incorrect standpoint.

StealThisSheen posted...

+As an employee, she must follow the ethics regulations

Correct. She has to abide by ethics regulations due to voluntarily taking a status as an employee that she did not have to take for the job she was doing. Again. Right for the wrong reasons. She does not have to abide by employee ethics if she did not take that status. That precisely is what had people nervous about her taking the advisor role. Which, your own article showed.

StealThisSheen posted...

+Her being unpaid does not change her official status as an employee of the executive.

This is 100% incorrect as proven by supreme court ruling. Your own article said she took the status of an employee on only to assuage fears of her not having to abide by ethics, which she wouldn't have had to as an unpaid employee under supreme court rulings.

StealThisSheen posted...

+The NRLA doesn't apply to federal employees

The supreme court and the FLSA do apply to federal employees (some FLSA regulations for the executive branch are exempt such as pay standards, but employment existing or not does apply by supreme court ruling). The fact you are reading a NRLA case that is relying on 4 supreme court case rulings in regards to various degrees and the last one being under FLSA standards for what seems employment or not speaks to your own reading comprehension.

+The other ruling you were trying to cite (regarding the FLSA pay regulations) also doesn't apply to federal employees of the executive

The ruling on what deems an employee or not does.

Typical liberal living in an echo chamber. Surprising.

---

Corrik7 posted...

This is 100% incorrect as proven by supreme court ruling. Your own article said she took the status of an employee on only to assuage fears of her not having to abide by ethics, which she wouldn't have had to as an unpaid employee under supreme court rulings.

...Uh, read the article I posted again. Shes an unpaid employee NOW. She became an unpaid employee. Before that she wasnt anything. Her becoming an unpaid employee is what made her have to follow ethics regulations.

Might want to make sure you read things thoroughly next time.

---

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ivanka-trump-federal-employee-unpaid-236657



Corrik...just stop embarrassing yourself.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ivanka-trump-federal-employee-unpaid-236657



Corrik...just stop embarrassing yourself.

There is like 4 supreme court rulings that all read exactly as I have stated. Educate yourself.

---

Bro in that linked Justice Department OFFICIAL POSITION it explicitly states that advisors have to be informal and outside or be actual Federal employees.

There is no informal official employee position in regards to White House employees, and thus your Supreme Court ruling doesnt apply.

Quit reading about private sector rules and pay attention to the actual issue at hand.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

...Uh, read the article I posted again. Shes an unpaid employee NOW. She became an unpaid employee. Before that she wasnt anything. Her becoming an unpaid employee is what made her have to follow ethics regulations.

Might want to make sure you read things thoroughly next time.

Read the supreme court ruling above. Then read the rulings on unpaid federal interns arguing they should be considered employees and being told no.

It is really clear cut.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

"I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees.

Can you read, Corrik?

Honest question I wont see the answer to since I gotta ignore you on this account now, too.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Bro in that linked Justice Department OFFICIAL POSITION it explicitly states that advisors have to be informal and outside or be actual Federal employees.

There is no unpaid official employee position in regards to White House employees, and thus your Supreme Court ruling doesnt apply.

Quit reading about private sector rules and pay attention to the actual issue at hand.

That's a legal opinion of a justice department. Legal opinions of a justice department aren't laws. You over here arguing everything Barr announces an opinion on is law. Lol.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Can you read, Corrik?

Honest question I wont see the answer to since I gotta ignore you on this account now, too.

Imagine being so fragile with yourself that you knew you were wrong the entire time (same dude who started out defending Nick Cannon earlier today until I warned him why he shouldn't. ) And then when you end up being right for the wrong reasons you go to wanting a pat on the back for ignore listing. Lol. Wild.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That's a legal opinion of a justice department. Legal opinions of a justice department aren't laws. You over here arguing everything Barr announces an opinion on is law. Lol.

"I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees.

Literally what are you arguing for??? Youre wrong dude, she point blank said in 2017 shes an official employee subject to all the same rules. Her pay is totally irrelevant.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Literally what are you arguing for??? Youre wrong dude, she point blank said in 2017 shes an official employee subject to all the same rules. Her pay is totally irrelevant.

Correct. She did agree to something voluntarily and both sides agreed to it. It is not consistent with the law. I have already acknowledged she is an employee by her own special voluntary agreement.

An unpaid worker is however not an employee otherwise by law (unless benefits or considerations being compensated in return). Unless you knew about that special agreement prior, you should not be arguing otherwise. He didn't. Hence he was RFTWR. Your argument of a DoJ legal opinion is completely extraneous and doesn't matter. Nothing to do with law.

---

True fact about Ivanka: She is an employee of the executive

True fact about Ivanka: She is subject to all of the rules and regulations that go with being an employee of the executive

True fact about Ivanka: She is not being paid for her position

Despite not being paid, she is still an employee and thus subject to the rules and regulations.

Huh.

Its almost like her being unpaid does not matter to her employment status

---

Corrik7 posted...

Correct. She did agree to something voluntarily and both sides agreed to it. It is not consistent with the law. I have already acknowledged she is an employee by her own special voluntary agreement.

No, no, no. Youre missing the point once again.

She didnt just voluntarily agree arbitrarily. She voluntarily agreed because legal experts specifically said that she couldnt have an official office and still be an informal advisor.

Her options were A) not be an official advisor or B) agree to the rules

Once she agreed to the rules she became an official employee, and thus is subject to the rules. Again, her pay is literally completely irrelevant, because part of becoming official was agreeing to the restrictions.

---

you know that whole argument of "trump could cure cancer and liberals would still hate him?"

this is the opposite taken to the umpteenth degree

you can just admit you're wrong here corrik instead of defending ivanka for no reason. she isn't going to sleep with you.

---