Thread: Kushner to be named 'senior adviser' to Trump

BY MALLORY SHELBOURNE - 01/09/17 07:30 AM EST



Lawyers have etched out a plan for President-elect Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to serve in the new administration, according to a report.

Mike Allen said in his inaugural Axios AM e-letter early Monday that Kushner will serve as senior adviser. Kushner is reportedly now searching for staff members.

NBC News later reported Monday that a senior transition official confirmed Kushner would be named senior advisor to Trump.

The New York Times reported last week that Kushner has been pursuing real-estate deal with a company that has close ties to China, all while advising his father-in-law during is bid for the White House.

According to the newspaper, Kushner hired the law firm WilmerHale for consultation on how he could follow ethics laws should he enter the Trump administration.

Just after Trump’s election victory, NBC News reported that the president-elect wanted Kushner to sit in on the daily presidential briefings. A transition official denied at the time that Trump had requested his children receive top security clearances.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...o-trump-report

I'm really happy to see this work out so that Jared and Ivanka can be in DC and working with the new Trump Administration!

Kushner’s appointment brings attention to anti-nepotism law



Scott Bomboy

National Constitution Center
January 9, 2017


Several news sources reported on Monday that President-elect Donald Trump will name his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a senior White House advisor on Wednesday. The move could test an anti-nepotism law on the books since 1967.

The appointment had been expected since last weekend, when Kushner’s attorney issued a statement about a potential conflict if Kushner were to be named to an official executive branch position.”Mr. Kushner is committed to complying with federal ethics laws and we have been consulting with the Office of Government Ethics regarding the steps he would take,” said Jamie Gorelick, a partner at the law firm of WilmerHale,

View
Jared Kushner. Wikicommons: Lori Berkowitz Photography

“Mr. Kushner is committed to complying with federal ethics laws and we have been consulting with the Office of Government Ethics regarding the steps he would take,” said Jamie Gorelick, a partner at the law firm of WilmerHale, in a statement. “Although plans are not finalized, Mr. Kushner would resign from his position at Kushner Companies and divest substantial assets in accordance with federal guidelines.”

Axios’ Mike Allen was the first to report Kushner’s appointment and Allen said that Kushner is seeking job applicants for his staff. It’s unknown if Kushner would receive compensation from his White House position, which Trump plans to discuss at a Wednesday press conference.

One potential conflict is related to a 1967 statute called the Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute. The law, known as Section 3110, was passed as part of a Postal Service reform law, and it states that an executive agency official can’t appoint relatives, including sons, daughters and sons-in law, to “a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control.”

There has been considerable debate about Kushner, or another Trump family member, serving in an official White House role and how that relates to the statute.

A similar controversy also took place in the 1990s when President Bill Clinton asked Hillary Clinton to lead a health-care task force that held closed-door meetings. In a 1993 lawsuit, a federal judge ruled that some of the Clinton task-force meetings needed to be held in public, but he also rejected the argument that the First Lady was a “government employee.”

In the years after that, several academics have argued that the Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute doesn’t really apply to the President, since the President has powers directly vested by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Article II, Section 2, provides that some officials need to be approved by the Senate, while other “inferior” officers may be appointed directly by the President.

In 2012, Gerard Magliocca from the Indiana University School of Law argued that Section 3110 clearly didn’t apply to the President. “First, as far as I can tell, this is the only statutory limit on the President’s authority to choose his political appointees. Separation-of-powers would suggest that Congress cannot intrude so bluntly into his discretion to choose close advisors,” Magliocca wrote on the blog Concurring Opinions.

Another argument is that the White House itself is not an agency of the Executive Branch, and that the Anti-Nepotism Statute doesn’t apply in this case. And there is some debate about the applicability of the law to Kushner if he doesn’t receive financial compensation.

A federal court appeal related to the Clinton case included language that discussed the White House as a government agency. “Although section 3110(a)(1)(A) defines agency as ‘an executive agency,’ we doubt that Congress intended to include the White House or the Executive Office of the President,” said Judge Laurence Silberman. “The anti-nepotism statute, moreover, may well bar appointment only to paid positions in government,” he added. However, there is disagreement about the nature of that language in that opinion, and if it was part of the controlling opinion.

Law professor Steve Vladeck from the University of Texas told CNN in November that while the statute could be challenged, the risk is that a court could rule that any action taken by the relative in an official role could be questioned.

“While it’s true that the penalty for violation of the statute is just to withhold salary or other financial remuneration from the wrongfully appointed employee, there’s also the possibility that any action taken by such a wrongfully appointed employee could be subject to legal challenge and potentially even be voidable,” Vladeck said.

Two recent White House ethics counsels, Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, also believe an appointment such as Kushner’s would violate the Anti-Nepotism Statute.

Before 1967, there was a rather long history of presidential relatives serving in appointed and unofficial government positions. The most famous example was President John F. Kennedy’s nomination of his brother, Robert, to become Attorney General.

Robert Kennedy was confirmed in a voice vote by the Senate in 1961 and he served until September 1964.

Other Presidents retained relatives at the White House in various roles, including James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Buchanan, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. Kennedy also appointed his brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver, as the first head of the Peace Corps.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kushner-a...201005769.html

The purpose of anti-nepotism laws was originally to prevent an official elected or otherwise from hiring unqualified relatives above and over qualified non-relatives. It was to keep a Mayor from giving out all the good easy jobs to relatives while more qualified non-relatives went home empty-handed. It was to prevent a form of favoritism that discriminated against others looking for and needing work that resulted in screwing the public because less qualified relatives were getting jobs over more qualified non-relatives.

None of this applies to White House or even Cabinet posts when Cabinet posts are confirmed by the Senate. The federal anti-nepotism law was passed in 1967 for one reason which was to prevent there ever being another Robert Kennedy serving on the Cabinet. While I'm generally opposed to discrimination caused by nepotism or the public getting ripped off with payment for less qualified workers and officials because of familial favoritism, when more qualified workers and people are out there to serve our interests, I don't support the federal anti-nepotism law for Cabinet posts or even federal employees so long as they're qualified and follow the rules. You don't want family graft any more than political corruption, but any law designed to prevent a Robert Kennedy from being Attorney General was a bad law to begin with in my opinion. Robert Kennedy to date is the only Democrat I would have ever voted for primarily because of his position on civil rights and helping black Americans especially those trapped in inner city ghettos.

I'm not saying we need to change anything back, I've not analyzed the impact of this law on our country, I just know the inspiration behind the law was racist and political. Democrats were racist and hated Robby Kennedy and the Republicans didn't want a Kennedy Dynasty. Of course it didn't matter, since Robert Kennedy was assassinated in California in 1968 on the night he won the California primary so the 1967 "law" was moot for its purpose.

Anyway, I hope Donald Trump with so much on his plate to fix our country can appoint his people he trusts and believes can help him get the job done without further harassment, criticism or threats from Democrats. Furthermore, any person, Democrat, Republican, Independent or Other who doesn't understand the difference between business and a "gift" or "emolument" needs to sit down and shut up. I heard some fool ranting today on the news that Trump has to get rid of his beautiful new hotel in DC because diplomats are staying there with their bills paid by foreign governments. Yes, that's called the hotel business. The purpose of the government contract to the Trumps to redevelop the post office into a hotel was specifically for the purpose of having large suites for long stays of diplomats because there weren't any in DC forcing diplomats to stay in apartments without services so no one wanted to come to DC. Now we have such a facility that provides all those types of food, transportation and other wonderful services for them so now they'll want to come to DC instead of our people always having to go to their country. The government makes money as Trump's make money so there is no conflict of interest, it is delivering on the purpose of the contract and long-term lease. Only socialist thieves and traitors would call this "unconstitutional". So sit down and shut up, morons.

Bernie Sanders: We need serious talk on serious issues

What we need is for Donald J Trump to be inaugurated and take office. Bernie needs to sit down and shut up.

Federal law, at 5 U.S.C. § 3110, generally prohibits a federal official, including a Member of Congress, from appointing, promoting, or recommending for appointment or promotion any “relative” of the official to any agency or department over which the official exercises authority or control.

Nepotism | House Committee on Ethics

https://ethics.house.gov/staff-rights-and-duties/nepotism

Nepotism

Below is a condensed version of this topic. For complete guidance please refer to the House Ethics Manual, Chapter 7 on staff rights and duties.

Federal law, at 5 U.S.C. § 3110, generally prohibits a federal official, including a Member of Congress, from appointing, promoting, or recommending for appointment or promotion any “relative” of the official to any agency or department over which the official exercises authority or control. The statute defines a relative, for these purposes, as "an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister."

The law bans the employment only of these specifically named relatives.15 It does not prohibit a Member from employing two individuals who are related to each other but not to the Member. In addition, the 107th Congress amended the Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 23, clause 8(c)(1)) to prohibit a Member from retaining a spouse in a paid position, and to prohibit a House employee from accepting compensation for work on a committee on which the spouse serves as a member.16
The employing Member or committee and subcommittee chairman must certify, on the monthly payroll authorizations, each employee’s relationship (or lack thereof) to any Members of Congress. The anti-nepotism law, as applied in the House, thus prohibits the hiring of a relative of a Member on that Member’s staff or on the staff of a committee or subcommittee that the Member chairs. The prohibition, however, does not apply “in the case of a spouse whose pertinent employment predates the One Hundred Seventh Congress” (House Rule 23, clause 8(c)(2)).

If a House employee becomes related to the employing Member through marriage (e.g., an employee in the Member’s congressional office marries a relative of the Member), the employee may remain on the Member’s personal or committee staff, unless the employee is the spouse of the employing Member or works for a committee on which the Member serves. Similarly, if a Member becomes the supervisor of a relative (other than a spouse) who was hired by someone else (e.g., the Member ascends to the chairmanship of a committee or subcommittee for which the relative is already working), the relative may remain on the payroll.

However, the Member may not then give that individual further promotions or raises, other than cost-of-living or other across-the-board adjustments. Changing an employee’s status from part-time to full-time would not be considered a raise or promotion and, therefore, would be permitted under 5 U.S.C. § 3110.

Similarly, regulations issued by the Committee on House Administration prohibit the use of committee funds for the benefit of a Member or relative of a Member by way of a contract or otherwise.

Specifically, those regulations state that “[u]nless specifically provided by federal laws, House rules, or Committee on House Administration regulations, no Member, relative of the Member, or anyone with whom the Member has a professional or legal relationship may directly benefit from the expenditure” of either the clerk hire or the official expenses allowance.17 A comparable provision applies to House committees. The anti-nepotism restrictions apply only to employees on the Member’s or a committee’s official payroll. Campaign workers are not covered.

Example 5. Member D would like to hire his uncle by marriage to work in his congressional office. Member D would be in violation of House Rule 23 by hiring a specifically named relative.

Example 6. Employee F has been a caseworker in Member E’s district office for two years, and she later marries Member E’s son. Employee F may remain on Member E’s payroll.

Example 7. Employee G works on Member F’s committee, and Employee G and Member F get married. Employee G may no longer receive compensation from the committee on which Member F serves.

https://ethics.house.gov/staff-right...uties/nepotism

---

15 See Lee v. Blount, 345 F. Supp. 585, 588 (N.D. Cal. 1972).
16 See H. Res. 5, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (147 Cong. Rec. H6-10, H8 (Jan. 3. 2001)).
17 Members’ Handbook, supra note 6.

Trump didn't believe birther conspiracy theories, son-in-law reportedly says

That makes it clear that the Jared Kushner appointment as Senior Advisor complies with federal law. There is no agency or department or control over any agency or department involved. Thank you Jared for agreeing to serve this Administration.