# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/61 "2017-02-10T02:55:37Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > 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. OK, then. Good luck with your analysis. I’m interested in how it gets to court. What did you find about the CFR and how its violation might get into court? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/62 "2017-02-10T02:56:40Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. Good luck with your analysis. As per above, I’m interested in the results of your research. What did you discover? ---
**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, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/63 "2017-02-10T04:59:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Good luck with your analysis. As per above, I’m interested in the results of your research. What did you discover? I discovered that you said: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Bricker View Post > – she didn’t record a commercial or publish a testimonial letter, But Conway said on a major television show: > [@](#): > > "“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.” I guess you are correct. She didn’t _record_ a commercial. ---
**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 10, 2017, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/64 "2017-02-10T05:05:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, then. Good luck with your analysis. I’m interested in how it gets to court. What did you find about the CFR and how its violation might get into court? Patience my friend, patience. I feel positive about it. Don’t you? I’m not in need of any luck that anyone else doesn’t need too. I’m just watching the republican shit show. What this event seems to be is a fulcrum to open a door. Chaffetz was prodded to act. It’s not a trump family member, so she might be fair game to teach donnie a lesson in government. She got “counseled” and of course donnie is upset by that statement, made by his own press secretary! SNAFU. How young do you have to be not to see where things like this are headed? 3, 4? At long last… I assume you are walking back that argument about it not being a violation because “redressing wrongs” against Ivanka is protected speech, or something. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/65 "2017-02-10T14:15:54Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Patience my friend, patience. I feel positive about it. Don’t you? I’m not in need of any luck that anyone else doesn’t need too. I’m just watching the republican shit show. What this event seems to be is a fulcrum to open a door. Chaffetz was prodded to act. It’s not a trump family member, so she might be fair game to teach donnie a lesson in government. She got “counseled” and of course donnie is upset by that statement, made by his own press secretary! SNAFU. How young do you have to be not to see where things like this are headed? 3, 4? At long last… > > I assume you are walking back that argument about it not being a violation because “redressing wrongs” against Ivanka is protected speech, or something. No, since I never made that argument, I’m not walking it back. But it seems to me that there are a couple general patterns in play here. In one of them, people post incomplete and inaccurate summaries and understanding of the regulatory framework in play here. Then no prosecutions happen. And them people post dark imprecations at the corruption that allows someone in a powerful position to dodge prosecution. We saw this dynamic play out with the (few) posters here who believed that Secretary Clinton should be locked up. They were impervious to all attempts to explain how the law was typically applied, presumably because those facts conflicted with what they desperately wanted to believe. And now we’re seeing it again. I spent a fair amount of time explaining the Clinton situation, but so far as I can tell I wasn’t able to sway anyone away from the conviction that she should be locked up. And in that discussion, I had the benefit of the doubt: I was a conservative, defending a Democrat. Here, I am a conservative defending a . . . well, theoretically a Republican. So undoubtedly some people are dismissing my words as partisan defense. I don’t really have the energy. ---
**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 10, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/66 "2017-02-10T17:56:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, since I never made that argument, I’m not walking it back. > > But it seems to me that there are a couple general patterns in play here. > > In one of them, people post incomplete and inaccurate summaries and understanding of the regulatory framework in play here. Then no prosecutions happen. And them people post dark imprecations at the corruption that allows someone in a powerful position to dodge prosecution. > > We saw this dynamic play out with the (few) posters here who believed that Secretary Clinton should be locked up. They were impervious to all attempts to explain how the law was typically applied, presumably because those facts conflicted with what they desperately wanted to believe. > > And now we’re seeing it again. I spent a fair amount of time explaining the Clinton situation, but so far as I can tell I wasn’t able to sway anyone away from the conviction that she should be locked up. And in that discussion, I had the benefit of the doubt: I was a conservative, defending a Democrat. > > Here, I am a conservative defending a . . . well, theoretically a Republican. So undoubtedly some people are dismissing my words as partisan defense. > > I don’t really have the energy. Well you seem to distinguish between “righting a financial wrong” and “promoting a financial interest”, in your analysis. You can’t go into court with that. But comparing hillary emails to conways behavior makes no sense. Hillary was investigated for this and it was well in the hands of vigorous agents prosecuting it. Furthermore her life was scrutinized for 30 years or more. How are these situations related in any way? If anything the treatment of hillary, both recently, and over the last 30 years would argue for the vigorous investigation and/or prosecution of conway. I’m sure you were not against hillarys investigations, just the piling on after she was cleared right? When a conservative here says “I don’t have the energy” don’t we know what that means? …Please… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/67 "2017-02-10T18:13:27Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Well you seem to distinguish between “righting a financial wrong” and “promoting a financial interest”, in your analysis. You can’t go into court with that. How does this get into court, again? Not again. For the first time in this thread, please explain your understanding of how the violation of the particular portion of the Code of Federal Regulations ends up in court. Then I’ll be happy to explain the distinction I was picturing. > [@](#): > > But comparing hillary emails to conways behavior makes no sense. Hillary was investigated for this and it was well in the hands of vigorous agents prosecuting it. Furthermore her life was scrutinized for 30 years or more. How are these situations related in any way? Here is the way they are related: both contain conduct that seems to technically violate a federal statute or regulation, but both are of a character that means that they would not typically be used in a formal proceeding to show violation. ---
**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 10, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/68 "2017-02-10T18:34:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, since I never made that argument, I’m not walking it back. > > But it seems to me that there are a couple general patterns in play here. > > In one of them, people post incomplete and inaccurate summaries and understanding of the regulatory framework in play here. Then no prosecutions happen. And them people post dark imprecations at the corruption that allows someone in a powerful position to dodge prosecution. I personally think your parallels to the Clinton case are very apt, and I do not expect Conway to be prosecuted or whatnot. However, some of your hedges in this thread about her endorsement – for example, that she was merely stating her personal opinion – are ill-considered. When public servants are performing their job, it is a poor idea to assert that they be allowed to spontaneously step out of their role as a government employee to perform some action that would otherwise be prohibited, and then step back into the role of government official to continue their business. In my opinion, that idea of switching back and forth instantaneously between public and private roles is an aggravating circumstance to her error in judgment, rather than a mitigating one. Imagine a Secretary of Commerce going to a meeting with GM executives, and during the course of the conversation, starting to arm-twist them for campaign contributions to the President. Saying that the Secretary was simply doing so as a private citizen, and not a government official, is no excuse. ---
**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 10, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/69 "2017-02-10T19:51:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How does this get into court, again? > > Not again. For the first time in this thread, please explain your understanding of how the violation of the particular portion of the Code of Federal Regulations ends up in court. > > Then I’ll be happy to explain the distinction I was picturing. > > Here is the way they are related: both contain conduct that seems to technically violate a federal statute or regulation, but both are of a character that means that they would not typically be used in a formal proceeding to show violation. Sorry, I should have said “comparable” and not “related.” The point stands. They are not comparable at all, except as “before/ after”, and “republican/ democrat” double standards. Hillary had 30 years of investigation and hearings and was clear. The aggressive treatment of Hillary, which you were a proponent of, by simple common sense argues for the investigation and/or prosecution of not just conway but donald and a growing list of administration names. I’m not interested in going to court. People get punished for breaking the laws in different ways. Hillary never went to court either. conway in court is minor compared with the need for some bright lights shining on the situation. If you don’t want that to happen I’d say it’s a double standard and indefensible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/70 "2017-02-10T19:59:30Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > The aggressive treatment of Hillary, which you were a proponent of, by simple common sense argues for the investigation and/or prosecution of not just conway but donald and a growing list of administration names. Can you post some of the words I used to show I was in favor of the aggressive treatment of Secretary Clinton? Because I remember it differently. But perhaps you remember my words better than I do. ---
**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 11, 2017, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/71 "2017-02-11T00:34:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you post some of the words I used to show I was in favor of the aggressive treatment of Secretary Clinton? > > Because I remember it differently. But perhaps you remember my words better than I do. Sorry, I assumed you did based on your affiliation. If we were talking openly and without spin I would say: Then what was your position then? how does this standard apply to the current admin? Do you admit conway broke the law? I understand you are the conservative lawyer who swoops in to lawsplain why conservative crimes are unprosecutable, too minor, unindictable, just like the other side did it, or whatever gradation you can defend. I voted for clintons 3 times for president. I don’t claim specialness for them or me, but I don’t want to get spit on either. I think citizens deserve one standard, no matter who they voted for. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/72 "2017-02-11T02:35:59Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Sorry, I assumed you did based on your affiliation. If we were talking openly and without spin I would say: Then what was your position then? how does this standard apply to the current admin? Do you admit conway broke the law? Here is a sample of what I said then: > [@Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/1): > > Of course, some of those with an axe to grind against Secretary Clinton are now piously announcing their great concern for transparent retention of e-mail records. > > But as a Clinton spokesperson points out: > > > [@](#): > > > > “For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained,” he said in an emailed statement. “When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes.” > > To the extent it’s a violation, it’s one of NARA policy, and purely technical in nature. She used a personal account but sent mail to the [state.gov](http://state.gov) accounts of her staff, where that e-mail was properly retained as a record. > > This is manufactured outrage. > [@"No Reasonable Prosecutor"](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-reasonable-prosecutor/759422/2): > > > [@drewder](#): > > > > I think the line from the FBI director that “No Reasonable Prosecutor” would pursue a case against Hillary Clinton. This seems to me to be a pretty ballsy statement from him especially considering that the law is clearly against her, since it requires no element of intent. It seems to poison the well against anyone who would decide to prosecute the case since she can just point to the FBI’s statement as proof that she’s being unjustly prosecuted. > > > > To me it seems that he’s exceeded the scope of his job by his pronouncement since his job isn’t to decide who to prosecute rather it is to gather evidence. I know this will get all sorts of partisan responses so I’d like to limit the discussion to should the FBI or Police make statements of this nature where they are basically daring prosecutors to disagree with them? > > When there is a complete lack of any prior prosecutions under the same fact pattern? > > It’s a very defensible claim. > > It’s also not really admissible at a subsequent trial, should one occur. > [@](#): > > I understand you are the conservative lawyer who swoops in to lawsplain why conservative crimes are unprosecutable, too minor, unindictable, just like the other side did it, or whatever gradation you can defend. Actually, I analyze the law and apply to the facts. In a thread accusing Ted Kennedy of being a [murderer](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11487142&postcount=39): > [@Bricker](#): > > Her death was a tragic accident, and it’s fair to remember both “tragic” as well as “accident.” But I think the OP is a thinly-veiled attempt to blacken Ted Kennedy’s name. Yes, her death was sad. But it was an accident. In this, she differs little from any other tragic accident victim. Why, specifically, are you sadder about her? > > > [@mswas](#): > > > > Blacken his name how? He killed her and everyone knows it. Yes, it’s relevant. So while people are remembering his life, I wanted to remember hers. I mean it’s obvious that I started this thread because Ted Kennedy died, but the hyperbole is unnecessary. I wanted to put up a remembrance of her, and if that blackens Ted Kennedy’s name it’s not because of anything I have done. He killed her. full stop. > > Yes, but not intentionally. That’s why we call it an “accident.” Although the death was a result of his driving, it wasn’t something that we’d attach guilt to. When you say, “He killed her,” you deliberately blur that distinction, and suggest a level of guilt that doesn’t exist. And about another Kennedy: > [@Abysmal judgement gene rears it's ugly head again-Kennedy stupidity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510/115): > > In the same sense that only Nixon could go to China, I believe I should be above suspicion of pandering to the Kennedy name. > > I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that Rep. Kennedy did anything improper with regard to using his influence to change how he was treated. The Capitol Police did not act properly, and they may well have been motivated by the Kennedy name… _but that’s not Patrick’s fault, and that doesn’t imply any guilty knowledge or conscience on his part._ > > There is virtually no evidence that he was drinking. It’s well documented that Ambien can have such effects as amnesia. We’re talking about a crime here – this means that the people bringing the accusation must have SOMETHING in the way of proof that rises higher than mere speculation. > > If it should develop that he had been drinking somewhere, and there are actual witnesses to that drinking, THAT is evidence. Right now, there is none. The man took some sleeping pills, got disoriented, and crashed his car. Now he’s seeking expert advice about the use of sleeping pills; very reasonable for a recovering addict. > > Sorry - unless and until more damning evidence comes along, I’m willing to skewer the Capitol Police for not following procedure, but not Patrick Kennedy for being the recipient of that largess. Show me he asked for it, or show me he needed it, and I’m a convert to the “hang 'im high” corner. But if the only reasoning you have is “Isn’t it obvious?” then my answer is no. It’s not. > [@](#): > > I voted for clintons 3 times for president. I don’t claim specialness for them or me, but I don’t want to get spit on either. I think citizens deserve one standard, no matter who they voted for. I voted for Clinton once. 🙂 And I agree that the standards need to be identical. That’s what I’m applying. ---
**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 11, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/73 "2017-02-11T03:02:30Z")
That’s fair. You’re easier on teddy than I was just after I read “senatorial privelege.” Halcyon, golden, salad days… How little we knew…How innocent we were, and he may or may not 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 11, 2017, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/74 "2017-02-11T14:08:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > However, some of your hedges in this thread about her endorsement – for example, that she was merely stating her personal opinion – are ill-considered. When public servants are performing their job, it is a poor idea to assert that they be allowed to spontaneously step out of their role as a government employee to perform some action that would otherwise be prohibited, and then step back into the role of government official to continue their business. > > In my opinion, that idea of switching back and forth instantaneously between public and private roles is an aggravating circumstance to her error in judgment, rather than a mitigating one. Imagine a Secretary of Commerce going to a meeting with GM executives, and during the course of the conversation, starting to arm-twist them for campaign contributions to the President. Saying that the Secretary was simply doing so as a private citizen, and not a government official, is no excuse. You mistake my explanation for my approval. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/75 "2017-02-11T14:14:38Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > That’s fair. You’re easier on teddy than I was just after I read “senatorial privelege.” Halcyon, golden, salad days… How little we knew…How innocent we were, and he may or may not have been. True. But we can only offer judgement based on what we know, not what we suspect, especially if we’re discussing criminal law. And from that perspective, what happened was an accident, not a crime. Tragic, of course. But accidental. ---
**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 11, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/76 "2017-02-11T19:08:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. But we can only offer judgement based on what we know, not what we suspect, especially if we’re discussing criminal law. And from that perspective, what happened was an accident, not a crime. Tragic, of course. But accidental. I’m still not clear on the definition of “ethics violation” Must it be a crime? If it occurs, what is the way it is called out and moves through the system? As far as going to court: I think people who voted democrat lately are feeling that they would like as much “justice” as Mcconnell, gowdy, chaffetz, cotton et al are willing to assert for themselves, at the taxpayers expense. And this has never involved going to court. In other words democratic interests do not have to be about courtroom prosecution any more than republican strategy is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/77 "2017-02-11T20:31:12Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > I’m still not clear on the definition of “ethics violation” Must it be a crime? If it occurs, what is the way it is called out and moves through the system? Great question. Violation of the CFR mentioned in post 13 is covered by 5 CFR § 2635.106, which provides only that violation “…may be cause for appropriate corrective or disciplinary action to be taken under applicable government-wide regulations or agency procedures.” So we’re talking about an adverse personnel action. While such actions can be as severe as dismissal, under this section they require warning or counselling an employee first, along with an order directing the employee to take specific action to terminate an ongoing violation. Dismissal from government employment can follow if that order is not obeyed. Additional correction action can include change of assignment, disqualification, divestiture, waiver, the creation of a qualified diversified or blind trust, or counseling. The way it is called out and moves through the system: It is the responsibility of the employing agency to initiate appropriate disciplinary or corrective action in individual cases. The agency head or the agency Inspector General will begin this by conducting an investigation. If the results of the investigation warrant, the agency must notify the employee in writing of the suspected violation, the right to respond orally and in writing, and the right to be represented. The investigation, together with the employee response, will be used by the agency head to reach a decision as to what corrective action to require. The decision may be appealed to the Director of the Office of Government Ethics. If you’re interested, I can walk through that process as well. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2017, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/78 "2017-02-12T10:34:42Z")
Sears and K-Mart have now dropped some of the Trump Home products from their on-line sales. [Defections by Sears, Kmart cap week of controversy for Trump brands](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-sears-idUSKBN15Q0Q2?il=0) The article also provides more detail about the decision by Nordstrom: > [@](#): > > Trump-branded consumer products have suffered new blows, with U.S. retailers Sears Holdings Corp and Kmart Corp discontinuing online sales of 31 Trump Home items, while new details emerged showing sales of Ivanka Trump’s brand fell in the weeks before Nordstrom Inc stopped carrying her products. > > Sears and its wholly owned subsidiary, Kmart, disclosed their decision on Saturday, saying it was part of a push to focus their online business on the most profitable items. > > Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday that Nordstrom sales of Ivanka Trump’s brand had dropped sharply before the retailer discontinued sales this week. > > **Citing internal Nordstrom data, the Journal reported sales of Ivanka Trump-branded clothing and shoes had dropped more than 70 percent in the second, third and fourth week of October** compared with the same weeks the previous year. The election was held on Nov. 8. ---
**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 12, 2017, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/79 "2017-02-12T11:30:09Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Sears and K-Mart have now dropped some of the Trump Home products from their on-line sales. > > [Defections by Sears, Kmart cap week of controversy for Trump brands](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-sears-idUSKBN15Q0Q2?il=0) > > The article also provides more detail about the decision by Nordstrom: With regards the falling sales of Ivanka Trump branded clothing. It may or may not be true that sales fell. However, I would not take the reasons given at face value. The Trump brand may have embarrassed these stores in the run up to the election. We don’t know how well the brand was pushed. Her clothes may have been pushed to a hidden corner of some stores. We really don’t know for sure what was going on. I wouldn’t rule anything in or out at this stage, but her brand being “boycotted” by many consumers is a reasonable enough scenario. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2017, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386/80 "2017-02-12T14:50:28Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Sears and K-Mart have now dropped some of the Trump Home products from their on-line sales. > > [Defections by Sears, Kmart cap week of controversy for Trump brands](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-sears-idUSKBN15Q0Q2?il=0) > > The article also provides more detail about the decision by Nordstrom: At least this time, Trump won’t be wrong when he calls them failing businesses. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-vs-nordstrom-ethics-violation-or-father-defending-daughter/779386.md?page=5)