Q&A: Donald Trump's 'first attempt to ignore the law

Drain the swamp?

 

I'm trying to figure out if Clark is fake or if she didn't say it or if she isn't a expert. Because voldad says this is fake. Or is trump not appointing his son in law? Or is the nepotism law fake?

 

ABC News did a piece that includes some more relavent information, but, basically, a court case, and some previous views have found that it didn't apply to White House staff.

 

1) Fake news comment elaboration. If it was ruled okay in 1978 why is this a news story?!? I know, because the President Elect is named Trump and not Clinton.

[video=youtube;2jnxdh1Fess]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jnxdh1Fess[/video]


2) Clinton comment elaboration. Bill said that with he and Hillary you get 2 Presidents for the price of one. He put Hillary in charge of Healthcare Reform.

 

But Clark did say it, right? The stir is about Clark saying it. She can be wrong and the story not be fake.

 

If the anti-nepotism law was ruled not to pertain to the White House in 1967, 1978, and again in 1993 for the Clintons, and there has been no decisions since reversing the ruling then what is the "News" here?

 

I think that's what Voldad meant. Perhaps could have been worded better.

 

Correct. She's wrong and trying to fabricate a story.

Good grief, JFK had RFK as a cabinet member.

 

Good point. We are finally getting away from D.C. Types in every corner.

 

Predated the 1967 law, though.

 

Aaron Blake is writing and The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune are publishing a Fake news story trying to imply Trump is doing something wrong.

 

But it's still not against the law. This all ran last night.

 

I agree, the JFK thing just doesn't have any bearing, really.

The law, from a layman point of view, seems to allow it in the White House Just an excerpt but, it spells out office, agency or other establishment everywhere but for executive. And since White House is office, then, seems pretty clear it allows it.

 

Awww...let's let everyone get in a nice lather, first.

 

Better - JFK had RFK as Attorney General. So, even if a law was broken in appointing him, you'd have to go to him in order to first determine a law was broken, and then he'd decide how it was enforced, if even at all.

 

This one is dumb, why can't we focus on the actual stupid shit he IS doing, like appointing a climate change denier to head the EPA or an Anti-Vaccine activist to head a commission on vaccine safety?

 

Agreed. I can't stand him as much as anybody, but find this outrage a little pointless. I worry that the storm of criticisms toward the Trump administration will encompass so much inconsequential nonsense that it will cause people to tune out the truly concerning things.

 

I'm for this. I still can't understand the Rick Perry appointment, either.

 

The media, Hollywood and liberals should have all learned this lesson, by now.

 

We're months past that point.