# 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:** 2
**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, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/21 "2017-02-09T16:06:58Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > 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. No, the review was professional and (by other accounts) accurate. It was more gently rebuking than harsh, in my opinion. > [@](#): > > 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? Well, the response was published, so a kajiilion or so. Interestingly enough, Hume arguably profited by the exchange: he sold the letter to a collector the following year for $3,500. And there was no bad blood: after he retired, Hume was passing through Missouri and dropped in on the former president, who welcomed him and played the piano for him. Daughter Margaret did not prosper as a singer. She did, however, become an well-regarded author, writing a series of murder mysteries set in various DC landmarks. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/22 "2017-02-09T16:10:48Z")
Trump is not a private person. He is on the clock 24/7/365 whether he likes it or not. His mixing his personal, petty and trite comments within his official duties makes him fair game for ethics and conduct issues. If Trump were a civil service federal employee, he would have already failed probation and been terminated for cause. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/23 "2017-02-09T16:12:34Z")
This is indicative of what lays beneath the surface with Trump’s personality defects. Trump can’t accept criticism in any form, whether it’s directed at him or his family. Psychologically, the next 4 years will destroy Trump and his ego. You already see this as he feels the need to defend everything critical by lying, misrepresenting, or misleading. False news, alternative facts are his defense against realizing he’s screwed in the melon. Trump is a psychological disaster waiting to happen, and constant criticism of him and much of his family (fair, with respect to those who are his “advisors”) will destroy him faster that an assassin’s bullet. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/24 "2017-02-09T16:14:07Z")
Didn’t he pinky-swear to stay away from family business? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/25 "2017-02-09T16:15:53Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > Trump is not a private person. He is on the clock 24/7/365 whether he likes it or not. [Hypocrite Trump Is Playing Golf Today, After Years of Criticizing Obama For Golfing](http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/05/hypocrite-trump-playing-golf-today-years-trolling-obama-playing-golf.html) > [@Donald Trump](#): > > “I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off. … You don’t have time to take time off,” Trump adds. [The Hill, 6/23/15] So apparently, he’s not on the clock. ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/26 "2017-02-09T16:17:09Z")
> [@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) Nothing in what she said leads me to believe she is offering anything other than a personal opinion. She clearly identifies her opinion, based on her experience with the clothes. This does not say or imply that the federal government endorses the clothes. A brief review of federal case law involving 2635.702 finds no case that rests on similar grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/27 "2017-02-09T16:57:49Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > 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? If the GOP decides that he has outlived his usefulness, he can be impeached for wearing the pelt of an endangered tribble on his head, if enough Congresscritters agree. That said, it would be a bit silly to impeach him for this when there are dozens of more egregious violations of law/ethics/norms/human decency in his record. ---
**Author:** ![RadioWave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/91b2a8/32.png) [@RadioWave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioWave)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/28 "2017-02-09T17:30:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nothing in what she said leads me to believe she is offering anything other than a personal opinion. She clearly identifies her opinion, based on her experience with the clothes. This does not say or imply that the federal government endorses the clothes. But she specifically says that she is giving them “a free commercial”. In other words, she’s standing in a government room, being interviewed in her role as a government employee and then providing a service for a non-governmental person. How can that not be considered “endorsement of any product”, or “for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity”? ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/29 "2017-02-09T17:33:31Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > 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. No, not all. Case in point being the current office holder who can’t seem to separate himself from his business holdings and those of his children. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/30 "2017-02-09T18:33:27Z")
> [@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. Agreed. Hume’s criticism was in fact balanced by acknowledging that Margaret had “a pleasant voice” and was “extremely attractive” on stage, but simply could not sing very well. He also acknowledged an obligation to honesty; he was, after all, a respected long-time music critic, a professor of the history of music at Georgetown and visiting professor of music history at Yale for many years, and a long-time radio host of a classical music station. Truman’s reaction was uncalled for and out of all proportion to the perceived offense, but notably different from the Trump example is that it was done in private. In fact the _Post_ refused to print it even at Hume’s insistence, and it was eventually publicized when Hume made it available to the competing _Washington News_. It caused such a furor against Truman that the White House received more than 10,000 letters, deploring his letter by a margin of 2:1, causing Truman to somewhat lamely claim that he wrote it, not as the president, but in a private capacity as a loving father. > [@RadioWave](#): > > But she specifically says that she is giving them “a free commercial”. In other words, she’s standing in a government room, being interviewed in her role as a government employee and then providing a service for a non-governmental person. How can that not be considered “endorsement of any product”, or “for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity”? Of course it absolutely is. The amazing thing is that people like Conway are so utterly devoid of integrity that they lurch through these ethical transgressions with no sense at all that they’re doing anything wrong. ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/31 "2017-02-09T18:49:45Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > No, not all. Case in point being the current office holder who can’t seem to separate himself from his business holdings and those of his children. I was of course contrasting the current office holder to those that came before. Were there any presidential office holders who had never held a position that would have required them to put their assets into a blind trust? ---
**Author:** ![OldOlds](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a3d4f5/32.png) [@OldOlds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldOlds)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/32 "2017-02-09T18:50:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Was Truman’s letter made public at the time? And if so, by whom? Big difference ethically between a private communication made public by the recipient and a public denouncement of a business decision. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/33 "2017-02-09T19:06:08Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Were there any presidential office holders who had never held a position that would have required them to put their assets into a blind trust? Are state government officials required to put their assets in a blind trust? Are military personnel? There were plenty of presidents who were never federal employees or officeholders. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/34 "2017-02-09T19:08:33Z")
Where would Harry Truman’s abusive letter to the critic who savaged his daughter’s singing have fitted into the principles mentioned in the OP? ---
**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, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/35 "2017-02-09T19:08:34Z")
> [@RadioWave](#): > > But she specifically says that she is giving them “a free commercial”. In other words, she’s standing in a government room, being interviewed in her role as a government employee and then providing a service for a non-governmental person. How can that not be considered “endorsement of any product”, or “for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity”? I agree it falls within the plain text of the regulation. I’m saying I cannot find any federal case law where the regulation has been applied to someone who was similarly situated. Let me put this another way: no action will be taken against Conwaye on the basis of this complaint. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/36 "2017-02-09T19:13:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree it falls within the plain text of the regulation. > > I’m saying I cannot find any federal case law where the regulation has been applied to someone who was similarly situated. > > Let me put this another way: no action will be taken against Conwaye on the basis of this complaint. Can you give me a list of all laws that nobody has ever been prosecuted for? I’d like to know what laws I can break without worrying about any consequence. I never knew that laws can be ignored if they’ve never before been enforced. Does this also mean that any new laws that are passed can also be ignored, since they by definition cannot be enforced given that they never before have been? ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/37 "2017-02-09T19:20:29Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Can you give me a list of all laws that nobody has ever been prosecuted for? I’d like to know what laws I can break without worrying about any consequence. I never knew that laws can be ignored if they’ve never before been enforced. Does this also mean that any new laws that are passed can also be ignored, since they by definition cannot be enforced given that they never before have been? Just to clear out a slight distinction, this is a federal regulation, as opposed to a statute passed by Congress. Secondly, the issue is not that the regulation itself is never enforced, but that it’s never been enforced in this kind of situation. As an example, you may remember the FBI’s analysis of Secretary Clinton’s e-mail handling of classified information. Even though her conduct technically was covered by the statute, Comey explained, there had never been a prosecution unless the perpetrator was motivated by more deliberate concerns than Clinton had been. As readers may remember, I defended that view at the time, pointing out here repeatedly how Comey was correct. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/38 "2017-02-09T19:28:07Z")
Fair enough, but what then is the point of the regulation in question? If it is unenforceable, then why does it exist? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/39 "2017-02-09T19:30:11Z")
Is there any precedent for what Conway has done? Are there previous cases of this type that were ignored? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/40 "2017-02-09T19:36:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree it falls within the plain text of the regulation. > > I’m saying I cannot find any federal case law where the regulation has been applied to someone who was similarly situated. > > Let me put this another way: no action will be taken against Conwaye on the basis of this complaint. Yeah. “Corruption” and breaking the law are two distinct things. Even democrats can get that if they hear it repeated enough. Thanks for your valiant service. But we are up to our ears in “corruption” here. (And oh yeah she did actually break the law. How about that?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386.md?page=3)