# 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:** 3
**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, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/41 "2017-02-09T19:38:28Z")
Perhaps it hasn’t been prosecuted before because it hasn’t been necessary. In 50 years, I can’t recall any similarly high level government official outright telling people to go buy a friend’s product. Not even Billy Beer enjoyed this level of executive support. If the closest example we can come up with is Truman’s letter then I say, first, Truman’s case is much less direct in that he doesn’t explicitly tell people to go out and buy his daughter’s music. Second, I would agree that his letter was possibly illegal and wouldn’t have complained if the appropriate authorities investigated it. If Conwaye came out and said “Oops, I shouldn’t have done that” I think most people would write it off as a minor beginner’s mistake. But after watching sixteen years of Democratic presidents being hounded for every real or imagined infraction, I think they (the Democrats) should hang stuff like this around the administration’s neck until they stop doing it. ---
**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, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/42 "2017-02-09T19:56:31Z")
> [@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. Are you saying that § 2635.702 has never been used, or has never been used on such a highly positioned individual? Assuming the latter, is it because people in those positions generally take their responsibilities seriously, and don’t break the laws, or is it because people in that high of a position are insulated against prosecution? I’ll agree with you that no action will be likely taken, but I don’t know that I agree that no action _could_ be taken, and I certainly do not agree that no action _should_ be taken. That said, I am sure she will break some other law again tomorrow (if she hasn’t already at the time of this posting) that is even more egregious, and just as likely to cost anyone in the admin anything. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/43 "2017-02-09T20:01:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let me put this another way: no action will be taken against Conwaye on the basis of this complaint. Apparently they chose to take some action against her on the basis of that complaint: [QUOTE=Sean Spicer] Kellyanne has been counseled, and that’s all we’re gonna go with. She’s been counseled on that subject, and that’s it. [/QUOTE] (Speculation is that her “counseling” involved a high-five.) ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/44 "2017-02-09T20:54:04Z")
Issues like this might make for fodder for political advertisements in the next election both 2018 and 2020. Obviously such ads will have no effect on the True Believers but for independents there was a lot of reaction to Hillary being corrupt (whether she was is not the point). I can see ads showing that Trump was in (spiritual) violation of ethics rules and didn’t discipline employees that violated ethics rules being an election issue. ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/45 "2017-02-09T22:11:03Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Fair enough, but what then is the point of the regulation in question? If it is unenforceable, then why does it exist? I will answer this question, but before I do, maybe I can save myself some time. Did you happen to follow the debate over Secretary Clinton’s mail practices - the one that caused then-candidate Trump to lead chants of “lock her up?” Do you recall, in any of that debate, anyone posing a similar question about the regulations concerning classified materials after being told that Clinton’s conduct was not prosecutable? The same general answer applies here. If you don’t recall, I’ll try to explain. ---
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/46 "2017-02-09T22:19:02Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Are you saying that § 2635.702 has never been used, or has never been used on such a highly positioned individual? It’s never been invoked against someone who was acting under circumstances like these: she was not acting for financial gain; she couched her commentary as an opinion; she made the comment in response to a question rather than as a commercialized, advertised endorsement. For example, if the Secretary of Commerce is touring a small factory and outside there are some neighborhood kids with a lemonade stand, he might buy a lemonade for a photo op and say, “This is the best lemonade I’d ever had! You kids are going to be successful entrepreneurs!” That conduct violates the CFR. But no one would generally consider taking action. > [@](#): > > Assuming the latter, is it because people in those positions generally take their responsibilities seriously, and don’t break the laws, or is it because people in that high of a position are insulated against prosecution? Well, it’s a CFR, a regulation, not a criminal statute. so I’m not sure if prosecution is even possible. (There might be a federal statute that makes violation of the CFR a crime, but I don’t know of it). ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/47 "2017-02-09T22:19:16Z")
Even Jason Chaffetz (!!!) agrees Conway’s statement was [unacceptable](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kellyanne-conway-s-ivanka-trump-fashion-line-plug-legal-n718831): > [@](#): > > House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz sharply criticized Conway for her remarks. > > “That was wrong, wrong, wrong. It is wholly unacceptable — no if, ands or buts about it,” the chairman told NBC News by phone. > > Chaffetz, a Republican, and the committee’s ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings, are "jointly going to send a letter to the White House and Office of Government Ethics for a referral. Earlier in the day, Cummings asked the congressional panel to review Conway’s actions. In the meantime, it appears Conway has been “counseled on that subject.” ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/48 "2017-02-09T22:23:19Z")
> [@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? This may shock you but members of Congress are not all legal or Constitutional experts. They sometimes pass laws that would be impossible to enforce or are unconstitutional. Actual legal experts tasked with prosecuting will stay away from the iffy ones unless they are under pressure to push them. Anyway this whole thing is pretty ridiculous. Can’t believe how much the presidency is being tarnished in so short a time. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/49 "2017-02-09T22:30:47Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Fair enough, but what then is the point of the regulation in question? If it is unenforceable, then why does it exist? I think Trump just found the first regulation to get the axe. ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/50 "2017-02-09T22:32:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > This may shock you but members of Congress are not all legal or Constitutional experts. They sometimes pass laws that would be impossible to enforce or are unconstitutional. Actual legal experts tasked with prosecuting will stay away from the iffy ones unless they are under pressure to push them. > > Anyway this whole thing is pretty ridiculous. Can’t believe how much the presidency is being tarnished in so short a time. If only members of Congress had legal professionals they could turn to to make sure the bills they’re sponsoring are consistent with the law. We could have a an office of lawyers for [the Senate](https://www.slc.senate.gov/?), and maybe even one for the [House of Reps](http://legcounsel.house.gov). If the presidency is being tarnished in so short a time, it’s because the office holder is doing things that no other president has done before. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/51 "2017-02-09T22:33:23Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > So, let’s start with the obvious: By using the official PotUS twitter account has Trump committed an ethics violation? I don’t know about the US but Denis Thatcher got into trouble for using No 10 Downing Street (i.e. the Prime Minister’s) letter-paper, so it would definitely be unethical over here. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/52 "2017-02-09T22:35:44Z")
When are the republicans going to realize that what they thought was a handful of Play-Doh to manipulate was actually a pile of dogshit. ---
**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, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/53 "2017-02-09T23:03:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > she was not acting for financial gain; I agree with your other points, but given the plain language of the regulation, you don’t think that she realized that her actions could result in financial gain for her friend? That she didn’t specifically intend to financially benefit her friend with her endorsement? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/54 "2017-02-09T23:15:15Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > [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) > > So apparently, he’s not on the clock. That’s one helluva nasty, vindictive article. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/55 "2017-02-09T23:17:19Z")
> [@dofe](#): > > If the presidency is being tarnished in so short a time, it’s because the office holder is doing things that no other president has done before. That’s an awesome insight. I would only modify it by saying he’s doing buffoonish and reckless things no other president has done. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/56 "2017-02-09T23:25:51Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > That’s one helluva nasty, vindictive article. Accurate though. They gave many examples where 45 criticized Obama over and over and over and over for playing golf. But here he is now, off playing golf. They gave written examples of how 45 claimed he would never take time off. Here he is now, taking time off. ---
**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, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/57 "2017-02-09T23:42:54Z")
> [@dofe](#): > > If only members of Congress had legal professionals they could turn to to make sure the bills they’re sponsoring are consistent with the law. AGAIN: Does everyone understand the difference between the United States Code (USC, statutes passed by Congress) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR, regulations promulgated by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States) as it applies here? The CFR (sometimes called ‘administrative law’) is not passed by Congress. Congress passes _enabling legislation_ that allows agencies to create rules. The CFR is a collection of those rules. ---
**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, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/58 "2017-02-09T23:47:07Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > I agree with your other points, but given the plain language of the regulation, you don’t think that she realized that her actions could result in financial gain for her friend? That she didn’t specifically intend to financially benefit her friend with her endorsement? I think she would say her motive was redressing the wrong that was done (in her view). And because the other factors I mentioned all point to a similar conclusion – she didn’t record a commercial or publish a testimonial letter, for example, but just responded to a question – I think there would be difficulty in using this regulation in this situation. ---
**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, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/59 "2017-02-09T23:52:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think she would say her motive was redressing the wrong that was done (in her view). And because the other factors I mentioned all point to a similar conclusion – she didn’t record a commercial or publish a testimonial letter, for example, but just responded to a question – I think there would be difficulty in using this regulation in this situation. How are “redressing the wrong” and “promoting financial gain” incompatible? You would argue this in court? It sounds like one of those conway whines that she comes out with when she’s caught lying. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/60 "2017-02-10T01:52:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > – she didn’t record a commercial or publish a testimonial letter, for example, but just responded to a question – I think there would be difficulty in using this regulation in this situation. Kellyanne Conway: "“It’s a wonderful line. I own some of it. “I fully — **I’m going to give a free commercial here**. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online.” Just in case you missed what she actually said, on a major television show, with a very large audience. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386.md?page=4)