• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ivanka Trump Sat In for Her Father at the G-20 Leaders' Table

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
7,997
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Why was Ivanka Trump, a private citizen and not a US Federal government employee, given the task of replacing her father at a table with recognised world leaders seated all around her? Why instead was not a professional US Federal diplomat or employee given the task? What legal mandate does Ms. Trump have to represent the USA at such high level meetings even as a passive observer?

A photo on Twitter showed Ivanka Trump, 35, sitting in her father’s seat between Chinese President Xi Jinping and British Prime Minister Theresa May. Also seated nearby were German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Turkey’s President Recip Tayyip Erdogan.

From:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-sits-in-for-her-father-at-g-20-meeting-table

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Why was Ivanka Trump, a private citizen and not a US Federal government employee, given the task of replacing her father at a table with recognised world leaders seated all around her? Why instead was not a professional US Federal diplomat or employee given the task? What legal mandate does Ms. Trump have to represent the USA at such high level meetings even as a passive observer?



From:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-sits-in-for-her-father-at-g-20-meeting-table

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Ivanka is an unpaid government employee. She's sacrificing everything simply to volunteer. I'm more impressed with her everyday.
 
Didn't you read your own article?

G-20 leaders can bring staff into the room for some of the meetings, and when other leaders stepped out during Saturday’s session their places were also briefly taken by others. Ivanka Trump serves as an unpaid adviser to her father, with the title assistant to the president and an office in the West Wing of the White House.
.
.
and...

“The delegations themselves decide, should the president not be present for a meeting, who will then take over and sit in the chair,” Merkel said. “Ivanka Trump was part and parcel of the American delegation so that is something that other delegations also do. It’s very well known that she works at the White House and is also engaged in certain initiatives.”

Like it or not she's one of Trumps staff and an advisor to him.

Besides, she apparently didn't even say anything. Also from your own article:

One official who was watching the session said Ivanka Trump had taken her father’s place at the table on at least two occasions on Saturday, but didn’t speak.

So not sure what your problem is?
 
Didn't you read your own article?



Like it or not she's one of Trumps staff and an advisor to him.

Besides, she apparently didn't even say anything. Also from your own article:



So not sure what your problem is?

Kai Shiang:

My problems are as follows:

1) That Ms. Trump is acting as an agent of her father and by extension the White House and thus the whole US Government without any clearly defined mandate and thus without the normal constraints that limit an agent's scope of operations. She is effectively a cabinet minister without portfolio, who has a very broad but undefined purview and thus undefined but very considerable political power, despite never being elected or appointed with the advice and consent of Congress.

2) That her appointment as a voluntary and unpaid "employee" of the White House is in conflict with US Anti-nepotism statutes even if she is not being paid. The increased political influence which she receives from her "officially unofficial" position may be a more rewarding compensation than money to a woman who is independently wealthy but may be considering a future in politics and public service. The notoriety of her "officially unofficial" position will further reward her by increasing her public profile which will increase the visibility and popularity of her "brand", which will in turn reap financial benefits to Ms. Trump from her eponymous company and thus is a "back-door income" for her work at the White House. Being pictured sitting down at a G-20 table with a bevy of the most powerful leaders in the world will translate into both present and future dollars for her brand and her income stream via her companies.

3) That her appointment as a voluntary and unpaid "employee" of the White House is in conflict with US Anti-Deficiency statutes and thus threatens the balance of powers between the Congress (which controls the purse strings for the White House) and the White House (which could now operate more independently from Congress if it is allowed to engage "officially unofficial" and unpaid employees to relieve itself from dependence on Congressional monies). This could lead to the development of a "rogue-executive" office, unbeholden to the constraints of dependence on the Congressional purse.

4) That foreign leaders and diplomats may find it difficult to suss out the powers and limitations of Ms. Trump's "unofficially official" position and may be either frustrated by it or take advantage of its ambiguity, thus leading to potential friction and possible diplomatic incidents down the road.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
My problems are as follows:

1) That Ms. Trump is acting as an agent of her father and by extension the White House and thus the whole US Government without any clearly defined mandate and thus without the normal constraints that limit an agent's scope of operations.

2) That her appointment as a voluntary and unpaid "employee" of the White House is in conflict with US Anti-nepotism statutes even if she is not being paid. The increased political influence which she receives from her "officially unofficial" position may be a more rewarding compensation than money to a woman who is independently wealthy but may be considering a future in politics and public service. The notoriety of her "officially unofficial" position will further reward her by increasing her public profile which will increase the visibility and popularity of her "brand", which will in turn reap financial benefits to Ms. Trump from her eponymous company and thus is a "back-door income" for her work at the White House. Being pictured sitting down at a G-20 table with a bevy of the most powerful leaders in the world will translate into both present and future dollars for her brand and her income stream via her companies.

3) That her appointment as a voluntary and unpaid "employee" of the White House is in conflict with US Anti-Deficiency statutes and thus threatens the balance of powers between the Congress (which controls the purse strings for the White House) and the White House (which could now operate more independently from Congress if it is allowed to engage "officially unofficial" and unpaid employees to relieve itself from dependence on Congressional monies). This could lead to the development of a "rogue-executive" office, unbeholden to the constraints of dependence on the Congressional purse.

4) That foreign leaders and diplomats may find it difficult to suss out the powers and limitations of Ms. Trump's "unofficially official" position and may be either frustrated by it or take advantage of its ambiguity, thus leading to potential friction and possible diplomatic incidents down the road.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I think you might be worrying too much. If nepotism was a concern, then CNN would be all over 24/7.
 
Why was Ivanka Trump, a private citizen and not a US Federal government employee, given the task of replacing her father at a table with recognised world leaders seated all around her? Why instead was not a professional US Federal diplomat or employee given the task? What legal mandate does Ms. Trump have to represent the USA at such high level meetings even as a passive observer?



From:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-sits-in-for-her-father-at-g-20-meeting-table

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Did she sign any agreement or propose any treaties?

Her husband does hold an official title.

This is the latest angle to attack the Trumps.
 
Did she sign any agreement or propose any treaties?

Her husband does hold an official title.

This is the latest angle to attack the Trumps.

Oh bull. If Obama had his wife or one of his daughters sit in for him you folks would have been all over it. Don't trying to deny it.

But in retrospect it really doesn't matter which one of the Kardashians take the seat.
 
Oh bull. If Obama had his wife or one of his daughters sit in for him you folks would have been all over it. Don't trying to deny it.

But in retrospect it really doesn't matter which one of the Kardashians take the seat.

That is the thing that led me to lose all respect for the right wing. They criticized EVERYTHING that Obama did for 8 years and now that Trump is the president, he can do things that the righties would have found reprehensible had Obama done them simply because Trump is pushing their agenda. They have forever lost any right to complain.
 
Personally, I'd rather Ivanka take her father's place in general. At least she isn't senile. In any case, both have about an equal amount of relevant experience, which is next to nothing.
 
Kai Shiang:

My problems are as follows:

1) That Ms. Trump is acting as an agent of her father and by extension the White House and thus the whole US Government without any clearly defined mandate and thus without the normal constraints that limit an agent's scope of operations. She is effectively a cabinet minister without portfolio, who has a very broad but undefined purview and thus undefined but very considerable political power, despite never being elected or appointed with the advice and consent of Congress.

2) That her appointment as a voluntary and unpaid "employee" of the White House is in conflict with US Anti-nepotism statutes even if she is not being paid. The increased political influence which she receives from her "officially unofficial" position may be a more rewarding compensation than money to a woman who is independently wealthy but may be considering a future in politics and public service. The notoriety of her "officially unofficial" position will further reward her by increasing her public profile which will increase the visibility and popularity of her "brand", which will in turn reap financial benefits to Ms. Trump from her eponymous company and thus is a "back-door income" for her work at the White House. Being pictured sitting down at a G-20 table with a bevy of the most powerful leaders in the world will translate into both present and future dollars for her brand and her income stream via her companies.

3) That her appointment as a voluntary and unpaid "employee" of the White House is in conflict with US Anti-Deficiency statutes and thus threatens the balance of powers between the Congress (which controls the purse strings for the White House) and the White House (which could now operate more independently from Congress if it is allowed to engage "officially unofficial" and unpaid employees to relieve itself from dependence on Congressional monies). This could lead to the development of a "rogue-executive" office, unbeholden to the constraints of dependence on the Congressional purse.

4) That foreign leaders and diplomats may find it difficult to suss out the powers and limitations of Ms. Trump's "unofficially official" position and may be either frustrated by it or take advantage of its ambiguity, thus leading to potential friction and possible diplomatic incidents down the road.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

1) Special Advisors are at Presidential discretion. They don't require confirmation.

2) Look at you angling towards that emoluments clause. So, during the Clinton years, how did you feel about Hillary proposing health care legislation?

3) She isn't proposing policy, she is an advisor and acts as eyes and ears for the President. Seems to me like you have a problem with special advisors. She will still be subject to oversight, same as any other government employee.

4) Since family members acting in the stead of the official leader happens a lot in multiple countries all over the globe, this seems like a overly concerned point rather than a relevant one.
 
Oh bull. If Obama had his wife or one of his daughters sit in for him you folks would have been all over it. Don't trying to deny it.

But in retrospect it really doesn't matter which one of the Kardashians take the seat.

There you go again, backtracking. This is an entirely different president and family.
 
There you go again, backtracking. This is an entirely different president and family.

That's a pretty interesting way to deflect from one's rank hypocrisy.
 
That is the thing that led me to lose all respect for the right wing. They criticized EVERYTHING that Obama did for 8 years and now that Trump is the president, he can do things that the righties would have found reprehensible had Obama done them simply because Trump is pushing their agenda. They have forever lost any right to complain.

I agree, it annoys me when people support Trump in stuff they were outraged when Obama did something similar. However acting like it is simply one side is ridiculous. The reverse is also true in your statement, people that were silent during the Obama administration going nuts over Trump are purely partisan driven and it is tiresome.
 
That's a pretty interesting way to deflect from one's rank hypocrisy.
I should have just noted how inconsequential this attack on the Trump family actually is.

Michelle Obama had her nose into many functions and policies of her husband's admin. as should members of Trumps
 
Ivanka is perfectly qualified, holding a PhD in International Relations. Oh, Wait! That's Chelsea Clinton.
 
Kai Shiang:

My problems are as follows:

1) That Ms. Trump is acting as an agent of her father and by extension the White House and thus the whole US Government without any clearly defined mandate and thus without the normal constraints that limit an agent's scope of operations. She is effectively a cabinet minister without portfolio, who has a very broad but undefined purview and thus undefined but very considerable political power, despite never being elected or appointed with the advice and consent of Congress.

Sitting at a table is not acting as anything.

2) That her appointment as a voluntary and unpaid "employee" of the White House is in conflict with US Anti-nepotism statutes even if she is not being paid. The increased political influence which she receives from her "officially unofficial" position may be a more rewarding compensation than money to a woman who is independently wealthy but may be considering a future in politics and public service. The notoriety of her "officially unofficial" position will further reward her by increasing her public profile which will increase the visibility and popularity of her "brand", which will in turn reap financial benefits to Ms. Trump from her eponymous company and thus is a "back-door income" for her work at the White House. Being pictured sitting down at a G-20 table with a bevy of the most powerful leaders in the world will translate into both present and future dollars for her brand and her income stream via her companies.

There are tons of unpaid volunteers in government.

3) That her appointment as a voluntary and unpaid "employee" of the White House is in conflict with US Anti-Deficiency statutes and thus threatens the balance of powers between the Congress (which controls the purse strings for the White House) and the White House (which could now operate more independently from Congress if it is allowed to engage "officially unofficial" and unpaid employees to relieve itself from dependence on Congressional monies). This could lead to the development of a "rogue-executive" office, unbeholden to the constraints of dependence on the Congressional purse.

4) That foreign leaders and diplomats may find it difficult to suss out the powers and limitations of Ms. Trump's "unofficially official" position and may be either frustrated by it or take advantage of its ambiguity, thus leading to potential friction and possible diplomatic incidents down the road.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

so you are just making stuff up because she did nothing wrong. got it.
faux outrage is faux outrage.
 
1) Special Advisors are at Presidential discretion. They don't require confirmation.

2) Look at you angling towards that emoluments clause. So, during the Clinton years, how did you feel about Hillary proposing health care legislation?

3) She isn't proposing policy, she is an advisor and acts as eyes and ears for the President. Seems to me like you have a problem with special advisors. She will still be subject to oversight, same as any other government employee.

4) Since family members acting in the stead of the official leader happens a lot in multiple countries all over the globe, this seems like a overly concerned point rather than a relevant one.

Opportunitycost:

On point one this is unprecedented so there is no legal consensus on "unofficial official" advisors and their mandate and limits to same.

Ivanka Trump new White House position ethical, legal issues - Business Insider

With regards to your point #2, I did strongly criticise Mrs. Clinton's improper appropriation of health care reform while President Clinton was in office. The First Lady over-stepped her historical mandate as presidential distaff.

With regards to your point #3, Ms. Trump is proposing and negotiating US policy with respect to women's issues at the G-20.

With regards to your point #4, this kind of familial delegation of power usually is limited to monarchies or dictatorships but is inappropriate given the laws and traditions of the US Republic.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Gotta say - I'm a lot more comfortable with Ivanka being in charge of something than I am with Trump.
 
Ivanka is an unpaid government employee. She's sacrificing everything simply to volunteer. I'm more impressed with her everyday.

:lamo
 
Ivanka is perfectly qualified, holding a PhD in International Relations. Oh, Wait! That's Chelsea Clinton.

Yeah, but for today's moronic Right, having a PHD is actually a negative qualification.
 
Sitting at a table is not acting as anything.



There are tons of unpaid volunteers in government.



so you are just making stuff up because she did nothing wrong. got it.
faux outrage is faux outrage.

ludin:

None of my statements above are made up and there is no outrage here, faux or otherwise; just interest and curiosity. Stop trying to jack-up emotions please, in what should be a dispassionate and reasoned discussion about matters of state. I am not part of your left-right polarity and my motives for starting this thread are purely academic.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
nepotism at its finest aka worst ...................


Hello, I'm POTUS Ivanka; would you be interested in my new line of fashion, or perfumes?

'The Art of the Shill' ...........
 
There you go again, backtracking. This is an entirely different president and family.

Backtracking? It doesn't matter which president whether it be Bush or Clinton or Reagan , having your child sit in for you with government leaders is going to cause a response from the other side.

Not acknowledging that is just full of baloney. To claim otherwise is total dishonesty and you know it along with everyone else here. But you keep deflecting.
 
Oh bull. If Obama had his wife or one of his daughters sit in for him you folks would have been all over it. Don't trying to deny it.

But in retrospect it really doesn't matter which one of the Kardashians take the seat.

I agree. That's not the story here. THIS is the story. A picture is worth a thousand words.

manchild.jpg
 
Didn't you read your own article?



Like it or not she's one of Trumps staff and an advisor to him.

Besides, she apparently didn't even say anything. Also from your own article:



So not sure what your problem is?

I think the problem is that she holds no official position, has no diplomatic experience....there's a list.

Funny how she fills in when Trump is tired, but the one who didn't "have the stamina" was Clinton.
 
Back
Top Bottom