That's a pretty charitable take on it.

Story says it's against the law, so . . .

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm working on being nicer. :)

The law prohibits elected officials from appointing relatives to Cabinet positions, but may not apply to a job as White House adviser. However that is not completely certain.

Seems like an incredibly easy law to skirt in this case. Even if you can't give them the title you could still have them do all of the functions. Only issue would be on access to info. And well, we don't really seem to worry about that very much any more.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

That's the law. Seems fairly black and white, not sure why it wouldn't apply to the position of senior adviser.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I have been on the record in the LR saying I am quite happy with all his picks for VP and cabinet.

I think Kushner is a smart tough guy who has served this capacity for Trump until now.

I think it is a mistake and a problem that he continues it formally into the official administration. In part because I think Trump now needs to rely on someone like Prebius to fill this role.

The solution to this one is right up Trump's alley: divorce.

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

Prebius is a politician through and through. He has his own agenda. I think one of the hardest parts of being president would be finding people that you can trust to not be pushing their own hidden agenda.

Cheney looking for VP and finding himself is a good example. He didn't want to be VP to help Bush, he had things he wanted done.

But there is a strong possibility that family is illegal in this role. So now Trump will be stuck talking to Melania.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

So is Pence. Which is exactly why Trump should be relying on them or he shouldn't have picked them. If he cant work with the people in his admin(some of whom are voted to the position, some of whom are vetted to the position) and come to a good consensus then this will be a terrible administration.

To put these two in these positions and then bring in Kushner for the "real advice" is wrong on many levels.

I disagree with you on Cheney "finding himself" but that is a discussion for 10 years ago.

I'm not sure this case raises any of the concerns that anti-nepotism laws are intended to protect against. Were the functions of Michelle Obama, like Let's Move, in violation of anti-nepotism laws? Perhaps you can educate me on that. Also, would it matter if he draws a salary? He doesn't need the money.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Were the functions of Michelle Obama, like Let's Move, in violation of anti-nepotism laws?

Uh, no, I don't think so. Are you really comparing the public service cause of a First Lady to the role of senior adviser? I mean, really? She was First Lady- they're expected to have a cause that they work for. It's not at all the same thing- and not even primarily because it's not a job she got paid for.

Also, would it matter if he draws a salary? He doesn't need the money.

Well, is he planning to forego the salary?

My reading of the law- which seems entirely straightforward- is that it doesn't matter if he draws a salary or not. It says he can't be appointed to the job. That said, the next section of the law does go on to say that someone who's hired in violation of the law is not entitled to get paid, either.

He also shouldn't be given the title, access to information or spaces, or the authority that goes along with the job.

If Trump wants his actual advice so bad, he doesn't need to hire him for that, whether paid or unpaid.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

But my question was not about what the law says, I'm asking if the policy concerns -- that are the purpose of the anti-nepotism laws -- are implicated in this case. Or, if the law didn't exist, would this specific situation bother you and why?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I don't understand your question, maybe. You're asking me what the problem with nepotism in the government is?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Look, do you believe nepotism is always bad? Are you opposed to family held and run businesses?

I'm asking, that if you were Judge -- not under code, but a judge under equity -- and you were evaluating this case and could allow or disallow this particular instance as being harmful or non-harmful based on the specific facts of this case, how would you evaluate it. So aside from the snit-nepotism law do you think the public is being harmed by this appointment?

Related question: was it bad for the country that JFK picked his brother as AG?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Look, do you believe nepotism is always bad?

In American government? Yes.

Are you opposed to family held and run businesses?

Not in the least. But the American government is not similar to a family held business. Do you think it is, and if so, please defend that position.

So aside from the snit-nepotism law do you think the public is being harmed by this appointment?

It looks like a textbook case of nepotism, and the exact situation for which we have nepotism laws in the first place. Given that, I'm not sure why I'd be considering this case separately from the law. But let's say there isn't a law. (There is, though, and even if you don't think it's necessary, flouting it this way is itself harmful.) Would I still have a problem with Trump hiring his family members to government positions? Yeah. I'm surprised you wouldn't.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I've noticed.

Nepotism should be the least of your worries - he (Kushner) is an idiot. And i say that as someone that was "less disgusted" with Trump than i would have been with Hillary.

It requires staying out of political threads and lots and lots of backspacing.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

https://www.google.com/...k3FUsmopNkiZt6Qdss1g


care to post your qualifications for this discussion.

I've told you that I don't see any policy concerns with this case. I've asked you to explain your specific concerns with this case, and all you have done is say "it is nepotism." Why is this appointment as special advisor bad?

Policy reasons for nepotism laws include:

(1) avoiding appearance of favoritism that hurts moral -- not factor here as all these guys are grown-ups and know Trump listens to Kushner whether he as title and office or not. I don't think Cabinet members will be saying, "I'm unhappy. This is unfair, he only listens to Jared because he's married to Ivanka."

(2) difficult working environment -- I'm not concerned that this will affect White House functioning. Anyway, in this case, I'd prefer leaving that up to Trump's judgment.

(3) low job satisfaction in cases of nepotism -- again I'll leave this to Trump's judgment.

(4) Other -- please feel free to add other policy reasons that are important to you.

You forgot to tell me if, in your opinion, it was bad that JFK had Robert as AG.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

So . . . you don't oppose nepotism in our government?

As for the appearance of favoritism that hurts morale- I think that's still a legitimate concern, but I'm more concerned with the fact that it undermines the public's confidence in the government. For good reason; another problem with nepotism is the obvious fact that it results in people being chosen not because they're the best qualified, but because, you know, they're related to someone. There's also the perception, and the reality, that people are being given lucrative and influential roles solely because of their familial relationships- that public goods are being used for personal gain.

Every day brings a new surprise, and the fact that I have to post an argument against nepotism in our government is yet another one.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Glad you asked. My wife went to high school with him at Frisch. He was widely known as a spoiled brat and, as i stated, an idiot. The entire school was shocked when he got into Harvard until the news came out regarding how exactly that came to be.

"It might arouse the ire of many that someone like Jared C. Kushner ’03, despite what could politely be described as modest academic credentials according to the book, gained admission in the wake of a $2.5 million donation from his billionaire father."

Let's assume it's illegal.

What's the penalty?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

so that's a "no" you don't want to put your credentials up against his.

So he gained admission to Harvard because of a donation; and was the first and last to do so......... Are you suggesting he also got grades good enough to graduate (cum laude) and go on to earn an MBA and a JD because his father paid for those too.

Is the standard for someone's qualifications (about being an idiot or not) now simply how they behaved/performed during their high school years? As reported by another during that same period? Do you think I can't find someone from "Frisch" who thinks your wife was a spoiled brat and an idiot during the same period.

And her current qualifications are??? Still a spoiled brat and idiot or has she had opportunity to grow and mature?

But this is a special position -- special advisor. And you don't have a problem with Trump getting advice from him. I think the American public is smart enough to know that Trump has him as an advisor since he want the advice -- not to give his very wealthy son-in-law a job. Also is anyone arguing that Trump chose him because he wants to give his daughter's husband a job?

Last time, or you strike out on this one: do you think it was bad for the country that Robert Kennedy was AG?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I don't see any penalty specified in the code, other than not getting paid.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."