Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
There is a comma between those bits, you know? Which indicates a seperating section in a sentence. Which means the employee should not use the office for their own private gain OR for endorsing any product, service or enterprise, OR for the private gain of friends, relatives or person which the employee is affiliated with in a non-governmental capacity.
In other words, someone in representing the US government cannot go on stage and say 'Buy Pepsi Cola, it's really great'.
In fact, Trumps staff were reminded of this fact by the Office of Government Ethics last month. Now...am I to understand that this 'foreigner' understands the rules of government ethics better than the US government does? Because it certainly seems that way...or are Republicans just above the law now?
|
you are correct, blatant fragrant illegality, on the scale of Watergate or the Teapot Dome scandal.
As "Vox" quite rightly points out, this is an extremely serious matter that deserves swift and draconian justice:
Quote:
The good news for Conway is that she appears to have broken the rules but probably not committed a federal crime. Criminal ethics violations are limited to financial conflicts of interest, accepting bribes, supplementing government salaries, getting involved in lawsuits against the federal government, and being paid in connection to matters affecting the government, as well as restrictions on what government employees can do after they leave office.
Still, complaints poured into the Office of Government Ethics, the independent executive branch agency charged with implementing federal ethics rules:
If the White House refuses to discipline Conway, the Code of Federal Regulations gives a few options for what can happen next:
1. If the ethics office thinks Conway did commit a crime, its director, Walter Shaub, can refer the matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
2. Alternatively, Shaub can recommend an investigation by a federal agency (in this case, the White House). If the investigation isn’t completed in a timely fashion, he can inform the president.
3. After the investigation, or when Shaub decides a “reasonable time” has passed without a conclusion, the matter could be dismissed or go to the Office of Government Ethics’ general counsel or to a hearing before an administrative law judge.
4. Either way, Shaub then would review the counsel’s or judge’s recommendation and could suggest (but not require) that Conway be disciplined, a decision that will be made public. (If the ethics violation is ongoing, Shaub can also order a federal employee to stop doing it.)
|
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...rump-nordstrom
serious stuff indeed.
However do not worry my friend, justice has been meted out and an appropriate sentence handed out:
Quote:
|
At his daily press briefing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Conway had "been counseled on that subject, and that's it," declining to further elaborate on whether or not the White House believed the counselor to the president had crossed a line.
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...rdstrom-234838
In other words, she has been told not to do it again.
