|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Ok well let me summarize too: The argument is that Jarvanka shouldn't be involved in government because a) they're not qualified; and b) there's conflicts of interest.
Whether you find nepotism in and of itself problematic doesn't change a) or b) above; in fact it's the least important part of the whole argument.
Edit: please answer me before banana does so I can have an intelligent conversation about it.
A) What qualifications do you mean?
According to https://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm
The only qualifications are that the SS is appointed by POTUS under the advisement and consent of the Senate.
B) What new conflict of interest in introduced? We already know about the extant conflicts of interest due to the Trump family not cutting ties to their private businesses. In what way does this potential appointment (even a de-facto appt.) exacerbate the preexisting conflicts of interest?
***
Is it necessarily nepotism?
According to this https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110
so long as she doesn't get paid for the job, it's not nepotism.
I didn't know that.
***
Please ignore nanners if you don't want to be side-tracked. I cannot promise to respond in a rapid manner (or that my response will be intelligent, but I do my best on the latter).
|
Reply With Quote