# Trump vs Nordstrom: Ethics Violation or Father Defending Daughter? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 9, 2017, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386 "2017-02-09T12:47:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/1 "2017-02-09T12:47:31Z")
> **[Donald Trump's criticism of Nordstrom raises ethical concerns, senator says](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/08/trump-nordstrom-tweet-ethics-bob-casey)** > > Bob Casey said president should be referred to ethics office for tweet attacking clothing store after it said it would stop carrying Ivanka’s label due to poor sales [https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Financial+Conflicts+of+Interest](https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Financial+Conflicts+of+Interest) Short version of the article. Nordstrom dept store dropped Ivanka Trump’s product line. They claim this was due to sagging sales. It is worth noting it came after an anti-Trump boycott. Trump tweeted about it and here’s where it gets interesting both on his personal account and the official PotUS account. Using the official account seems to my eyes to be a violation of the “Conflicts of Interest” rules from the US Office of Government Ethics. Sean Spicer has since said that no this was just a father defending his daughter and he has a right to do so. So, let’s start with the obvious: By using the official PotUS twitter account has Trump committed an ethics violation? And as a bonus discussion: If someday the GOP decides they’ve extracted all the value they can from Trump, will it be this sort of behaviour that gets him impeached? ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/2 "2017-02-09T13:16:36Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > So, let’s start with the obvious: By using the official PotUS twitter account has Trump committed an ethics violation? I think so. I also think that intentionally ignoring an ethics violation that has been brought to Congress’ attention is _also_ the basis for impeachment. If you ignore a breach of ethics, you are an accomplice to that breach of ethics. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/3 "2017-02-09T13:33:12Z")
I’m not a lawyer so I can’t say if it’s an ethics violation. It’s certainly unethical and an abuse of power. As is Kellyanne Conway telling Americans to go out and buy Ivanka’s stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/4 "2017-02-09T13:49:20Z")
So far, it seems like the emoluments clause may be the only ethical restriction which actually applies to the President. (And only relevant if someone can find a way to establish standing in court - which seems difficult to accomplish.) Ethical and legal are two distinct and only occasionally tentatively linked concepts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/5 "2017-02-09T14:01:21Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > So, let’s start with the obvious: By using the official PotUS twitter account has Trump committed an ethics violation? As was discussed in some detail earlier, the conflict of interest laws explicitly exclude the President and Vice-President, as laid out in 18 U.S. Code § 202(c). So from a legal perspective, I’m unaware of any statute that is being violated. I certainly welcome correction on this point. In simpler language: > [@](#): > > Using the official account seems to my eyes to be a violation of the “Conflicts of Interest” rules from the US Office of Government Ethics. Those rules don’t legally include the President, so, no. This is a point that’s been made many times before on this board. And for whatever it’s worth, President Truman (in pre-Twitter days) was furious when Paul Hume, a music critic for the Washington Post, gave Truman’s daughter a terrible review of her vocal performance at a December 1950 performance at Constitution Hall. Hume wrote that Margaret Truman simply could not sing well, was flat most of the time, and “cannot sing with anything approaching professional finish.” In response, Truman used official White House stationery to reply to Hume, saying in major part: > [@](#): > > I’ve just read your lousy review of Margaret’s concert. I’ve come to the conclusion that you are an “eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.” > > It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you’re off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. > > Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! > > Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you’ll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry. This did not violate any laws either. I leave it to your informed analysis how morally unethical Trump is, or Truman was, but from a legal perspective, nope. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/6 "2017-02-09T14:08:59Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > If someday the GOP decides they’ve extracted all the value they can from Trump, will it be this sort of behaviour that gets him impeached? No. This behavior is eye-rollingly petty, but since no ethics rules were broken, not worth the enormous effort of impeachment. Especially by the president’s own party. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/7 "2017-02-09T14:17:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As was discussed in some detail earlier, the conflict of interest laws explicitly exclude the President and Vice-President, as laid out in 18 U.S. Code § 202(c). > > So from a legal perspective, I’m unaware of any statute that is being violated. I certainly welcome correction on this point. > > In simpler language: > > Those rules don’t legally include the President, so, no. > > This is a point that’s been made many times before on this board. > > And for whatever it’s worth, President Truman (in pre-Twitter days) was furious when Paul Hume, a music critic for the Washington Post, gave Truman’s daughter a terrible review of her vocal performance at a December 1950 performance at Constitution Hall. Hume wrote that Margaret Truman simply could not sing well, was flat most of the time, and “cannot sing with anything approaching professional finish.” > > In response, Truman used official White House stationery to reply to Hume, saying in major part: > > This did not violate any laws either. > > I leave it to your informed analysis how morally unethical Trump is, or Truman was, but from a legal perspective, nope. While it is true that the fact that the president is legally immune to the consequences of conflict of interest, that is something that is so antithetical to how most people think govt officials should act, that it is still a surprise. And not everyone has participated in all the threads, so may not have come across this interesting tidbit of political trivia. In any case, the difference between Truman and Trump (apart from one using twitter to reach instantly to millions of people, and he other using whit house stationary, which goes to who, exactly?) is that Truman wa responding to criticism, in kind. The critic actually said rather unkind things to which truman responded, using similar language, while nordstrom made a business decision that caused the so-called president to lash out. So, yeah, neither actually illegal, but ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/8 "2017-02-09T14:25:27Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > In any case, the difference between Truman and Trump (apart from one using twitter to reach instantly to millions of people, and he other using whit house stationary, which goes to who, exactly?) is that Truman wa responding to criticism, in kind. The critic actually said rather unkind things to which truman responded, using similar language, while nordstrom made a business decision that caused the so-called president to lash out. > > So, yeah, neither actually illegal, but Hume was a music critic. He was employed by the Washington Post to review musical performances and offer his professional evaluation of them. I’m not sure I agree his words are fairly described as “unkind;” so far as I am aware, they were a good-faith evaluation of Margaret’s singing. And he certainly did not threaten violence. Truman’s response was not “in kind,” and did not use similar language. Hume wrote a critique of a musical performance; Truman threatened to punch Hume. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/9 "2017-02-09T15:01:31Z")
Was Truman’s letter made public at the time? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/10 "2017-02-09T15:10:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As was discussed in some detail earlier, the conflict of interest laws explicitly exclude the President and Vice-President, as laid out in 18 U.S. Code § 202(c). > > So from a legal perspective, I’m unaware of any statute that is being violated. I certainly welcome correction on this point. In your opinion, should the rules be amended to include the president and vice-president? It would of course require a blind trust for any assets and I don’t know how you’d handle family interests. Is that even workable? ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/11 "2017-02-09T15:36:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As was discussed in some detail earlier, the conflict of interest laws explicitly exclude the President and Vice-President, as laid out in 18 U.S. Code § 202(c). > > So from a legal perspective, I’m unaware of any statute that is being violated. I certainly welcome correction on this point. Ok, set the P and VP aside, what is your opinion from a legal perspective on the next phase: [Kellyanne Conway: ‘Go buy Ivanka’s stuff’](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/kellyanne-conway-ivanka-nordstrom-234838) > [@](#): > > Standing in the White House press briefing room, Conway, a counselor to the president, encouraged Americans to purchase Ivanka Trump’s products, one day after President Donald Trump himself lashed out at the department store Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s clothing line. > > “It’s a wonderful line. I own some of it,” Conway told “Fox &Friends.” “I fully — I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online.” ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/12 "2017-02-09T15:40:24Z")
> [@bricker](#): > > Hume was a music critic. He was employed by the Washington Post to review musical performances and offer his professional evaluation of them. I’m not sure I agree his words are fairly described as “unkind;” so far as I am aware, they were a good-faith evaluation of Margaret’s singing. And he certainly did not threaten violence. Truman’s response was not “in kind,” and did not use similar language. Hume wrote a critique of a musical performance; Truman threatened to punch Hume. I didn’t read the review, so I assumed it was a typical harsh and insulting criticism that critics like to do sometimes. If Truman was a harsher critic critic than the critic was a music critic, then I find that is still in the same venue, just apparently Truman was better at it. I have no idea how important white house stationery was at the time. Quick googling doesn’t really tell me much about it, other than now some white house stationary with his signature is collectible. How many people would have read this response? The threat of violence is a bit of an escalation, but he had relatively recently dropped a coupla nukes, so warning that he was going to need a steak for his black eye and a new nose struck me as more of puffery than honest aggression, and the first reading it didn’t even register to me as an actual _threat_, but more of a “why, I oughttta…” > [@Sinaptics](#): > > In your opinion, should the rules be amended to include the president and vice-president? It would of course require a blind trust for any assets and I don’t know how you’d handle family interests. Is that even workable? The problem is, is that anyone else in the govt could recuse themselves and have a peer or higher office take over the issue, if it was found that there was a conflict of interest between their personal interests and the interests of the country. It is impossible to truly distance yourself from any and all possible conflicts of interest, and so if the case comes up, then the president doesn’t need to recuse himself from that rare event, which is good, because who does a president recuse themselves to? Most presidents (all maybe) worked their way up through other offices that would have had them put their stuff into blind trust already, and the people are supposed to vote for someone trustworthy enough to not use this loophole in the law for unethical behavior. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/13 "2017-02-09T15:41:25Z")
Specifically consider Conway’s actions in light of [5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702) > [@](#): > > § 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain. > An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/14 "2017-02-09T15:45:56Z")
As an IMHO and no fan of Trump, no this is not an ethics violation. It is petty and outside of the norms of the expectations of Presidential behavior. It lacks decorum, but aside from his personal hygiene and manner of dress, it seems that Trump lacking decorum is a feature, not a bug. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/15 "2017-02-09T15:47:58Z")
> [@smartaleccat](#): > > specifically consider conway’s actions in light of [5 cfr 2635.702 - use of public office for private gain](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702) lock…her…up…!! ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/16 "2017-02-09T15:52:13Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > It is petty and outside of the norms of the expectations of Presidential behavior. This. Being the President of the United States is a full-time job (and then some), and the current holder of the title comes across as spending too much of his time and energy on things like this issue, obsessing about his old TV show, obsessing about Saturday Night Live, etc., etc. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/17 "2017-02-09T15:56:49Z")
I am reminded of Trump supporters frequent claims that Clinton’s email server was a bad idea regardless of whether the rules prohibited it or not, and that if any other government employee did the same, the employee would be subject to some type of administrative punishment that could be anything from an admonishment to firing. Well, here we are. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/18 "2017-02-09T15:57:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As was discussed in some detail earlier, the conflict of interest laws explicitly exclude the President and Vice-President, as laid out in 18 U.S. Code § 202(c). Thanks for setting the facts straight Bricker. My apologies if you’ve mentioned this before. I either did not see it or did not recall. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/19 "2017-02-09T15:58:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Was Truman’s letter made public at the time? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/20 "2017-02-09T15:59:59Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > In your opinion, should the rules be amended to include the president and vice-president? It would of course require a blind trust for any assets and I don’t know how you’d handle family interests. Is that even workable? I don’t think it’s workable. My opinion would require only disclosure of financial interests, and leave in the public’s hands any remedy for whatever they felt was inappropriate. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386.md?page=2)