Key lawmakers seek probe of Kellyanne Conway's 'go buy Ivanka's stuff' message

[randel]

Jesus, give it a damned break.

A Centrist you are certainly not. No "honor" with Sessions, then you somehow say this is a "witch hunt" when we all, anybody that knows anything about the matter, ALREADY KNOW SHE LIED TO CONGRESS?

Good freaking lord, I would suggest some remedial solutions to your news gathering, but it would seem analogous to offering prescription glasses to the blind. It ain't gonna help most probably.

But I guess, depending on how you interpret it, you may be right about the "witch hunt". They would be "hunting" for her and she most certainly is a "witch", so there is some truth to what you say...

it is what it is, and as i've said, quite a few allegations, much shinola slung at the wall, nothing that stuck, and it wasnt lack of effort on the republican side to find something on her....but, no convictions...mud slinging yes, convictions no.

 

[DA60]

I think Trump is a buffoon and this lady is a a ding dong.

But I see nothing to this story. Big deal, she gave an opinion. What moron is going to do something she says anyway?

Anyone who cares about this is purely witch hunting...it means NOTHING.

Move on.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

it is what it is, and as i've said, quite a few allegations, much shinola slung at the wall, nothing that stuck, and it wasnt lack of effort on the republican side to find something on her....but, no convictions...mud slinging yes, convictions no.

How many times must I have to say this before you get it... the no mercy is for future indictments, trials, accusations... she is far from being out of the hot water...surely you are aware of her circumstances...

 

[randel]

How many times must I have to say this before you get it... the no mercy is for future indictments, trials, accusations... she is far from being out of the hot water...surely you are aware of her circumstances...

why would there be any future indictments? unless sessions is looking to throw some red meat to the trump base that is....havent got anything to this point, don't expect there to be anything in the future

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

why would there be any future indictments? unless sessions is looking to throw some red meat to the trump base that is....havent got anything to this point, don't expect there to be anything in the future

I TOLD YOU ALREADY.

A criminal referral by Congress, one already ignored by the O bomb "Justice" Department. Besides which, there is an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. From all that I have been able to ascertain, there is more than red meat there, it was an illicit pot of gold for the Clintons... and maybe their ticket to prison.

Nobody likes a charity cheat.

 

[tres borrachos]

She said this in a public forum, didn't try to cover it up, and was subsequently chastised by the members of the administration. I know some of you need/want to see blood on the streets because of this, but really, don't we have better things to worry about? The difference between her action and what was going on during the Obama administration is that Obama generated executive orders to advance his agenda. And in so doing chose winners (see Solyndra...temporarily) and losers without any knowledge or input by the legislative branch or the American public. I think it will be impossible for the Trump administration to avoid conflicts in light of his far ranging business assets, but as long this is transparent, we can weigh the cost benefit and decide what is appropriate. God forbid that Betsy DeVos might be seen walking into a D.C. school with a Gucci bag after the Trump administration decides to lend assistance to Florence, Italy after an earthquake - certainly this would be evidence of a quid pro quo.

She "didn't try to cover it up"? That's the damndest thing I've seen posted on here in years. She couldn't "cover it up". She said it on national television. That was the whole point. Good grief.

Nobody was talking about Obama and DeVos. Please focus to the subject of the thread. By the way, it isn't an ethics violation to carry a Gucci bag. It IS an ethics violation to plug a company while standing in front of the "Office of the White House" sign.:roll:

 

[Praxas]

I think Trump is a buffoon and this lady is a a ding dong.

But I see nothing to this story. Big deal, she gave an opinion. What moron is going to do something she says anyway?

Anyone who cares about this is purely witch hunting...it means NOTHING.

Move on.

Actually there is something very wrong ethically with it and there are even rules prohibiting what she did. The one thing I will concede on is it is up to Trump to decide how to handle it. He has chosen to give her a slap on the wrist and nothing more. Should she repeat the mistake, Trump would be a fool not to fire her.

The biggest problem I have had with her on this issue is the fact she was unrepentant to what she did.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Actually there is something very wrong ethically with it and there are even rules prohibiting what she did. The one thing I will concede on is it is up to Trump to decide how to handle it.

And there's the rub. A robust code of ethics does not emanate from the top.

Example: Trumps management arrangement for his global empire is not a legal 'blind trust' ... it is a sham that does nothing to erect/maintain conflict of interest barriers.

 

[American]

Enforcement of ethics and the emoluments clause matters.

Strange that you chose now to start.

 

[justabubba]

Strange that you chose now to start.

when was it previously not applied when it should have been

 

[RenoCon]

She "didn't try to cover it up"? That's the damndest thing I've seen posted on here in years. She couldn't "cover it up". She said it on national television. That was the whole point. Good grief.

Nobody was talking about Obama and DeVos. Please focus to the subject of the thread. By the way, it isn't an ethics violation to carry a Gucci bag. It IS an ethics violation to plug a company while standing in front of the "Office of the White House" sign.:roll:

:doh

Definition:

"Forum

In United States constitutional law, a public forum is a government-owned property that is open to public expression and assembly. Forums are classified as public or nonpublic. A public forum, also called an open forum, is open to all expression that is protected under the First Amendment.

Forum (legal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)"

Or more specifically, see:

"Copyright (c) 1987 University of Michigan Law School
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

NOTE: CABLE TELEVISION RIGHTS OF WAY: TECHNOLOGY EXPANDS THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC FORUM

SUMMER, 1987

20 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 1293"

The comment regarding DeVos is what one calls an "example", in this case in an effort demonstrate the futility of the left and their efforts to claim impeachable offenses in the Trump administration based on the tiniest of infractions. Perhaps I was too obtuse (def. "difficult to comprehend: not clear or precise in thought or expression"). Let me clarify. If, and this is just if, as I am not aware of any recent earthquake in Florence, Italy; but, if there was and the Trump administration sent funds to help in the relief effort in Florence, the home of Gucci (maybe that was the confusing part), and subsequently DeVos (or we could even substitute General "Mad Dog" Mattis, it doesn't really matter as this is just a theoretical example...but...you know...the General carrying a purse...) was spotted carrying a Gucci purse, the conspiratorial left would claim this was an ethical violation. In other words she has a Gucci purse because it was given to her as a reward for funds sent to Florence (as opposed to being a simple coincidence for this billionaire to have a Gucci). If this was true, then that is "quid pro quo" and an ethical violation (and likely impeachable per the left). Much like SOS Clinton endorsing relief efforts in Haiti and giving friends of Bill the contracts. Oh but there was nothing to see there, right?