Those are all valid questions but that does not detract from what Trump is doing. I can complain about Obama all day but that would just be preaching to the choir. Right now is Trump is the face of republicans and he is giving us a worse name by the day despite some of the good he has managed to do. Trump is failing to drain the swap, Trump seems to be the swamp.

Exactly what law did he violate? You failed to mention it. Please provide the full text of the law. And the exact action of Trump that violated the law.

People in this region have been slaughtering each other since before biblical times. Add the crusader/islam wars to this mix. Bear in mind that it takes a cold dark heart to murder your own son, daughter, or wife if you feel that they dishonored you. Imagine what they could do to an infidel. No amount of liberal I'm ok you're ok, lets sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya crap is going to fix this.   Some of you have probably seen this video.

Exactly what law did he violate? You failed to mention it. Please provide the full text of the law. And the exact action of Trump that violated the law.

Kellyxnn Conway violated the law when she put in a plug for Ivanka's jewelry. Trump walked the gray area when he made comments about Nordstrom regarding a family members business dealing with them. His comments are clearly an ethics issue though the question of whether it broke the law is  lies in the gray area.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2007-title5-vol3/pdf/CFR-2007-title5-vol3-sec2635-702.pdf

§2635.702 Use of public office for pri- vate gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business rela- tions.

Kellyxnn Conway violated the law when she put in a plug for Ivanka's jewelry. Trump walked the gray area when he made comments about Nordstrom regarding a family members business dealing with them. His comments are clearly an ethics issue though the question of whether it broke the law is  lies in the gray area.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2007-title5-vol3/pdf/CFR-2007-title5-vol3-sec2635-702.pdf

§2635.702 Use of public office for pri- vate gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business rela- tions.

I didn't watch the Conway interview. Did she, in some official capacity as White House spokesperson, just blurt out "Buy Ivanka's stuff" totally out of context, or was it in the context of a question or criticism? How would you compare what she said in whatever context she said it with Obama giving $900 MILLION (return: zero) to his big donor Solyndra CEO? Or with the huge ACA website job being given to a personal friend of Michelle Obama? Yeah, I know, I know, you didn't criticize the Obama administration for their ethical lapses because it would have been "preaching to the choir", and "two wrongs don't make a right", etc., etc., etc., but still, I'd like to hear your evaluation of the relative severity of each instance.

I didn't watch the Conway interview. Did she, in some official capacity as White House spokesperson, just blurt out "Buy Ivanka's stuff" totally out of context, or was it in the context of a question or criticism? How would you compare what she said in whatever context she said it with Obama giving $900 MILLION (return: zero) to his big donor Solyndra CEO? Or with the huge ACA website job being given to a personal friend of Michelle Obama? Yeah, I know, I know, you didn't criticize the Obama administration for their ethical lapses because it would have been "preaching to the choir", and "two wrongs don't make a right", etc., etc., etc., but still, I'd like to hear your evaluation of the relative severity of each instance.

I think Conway was talking about the jewelry issue but then she blurted out how good it was and told people to go buy it. It wasn't like she made some sly comment about it being attractive or something.
Here is a video of the interview for context.


Obama administration giving loans or projects to friends is a separate ethics issue and much more complicated. Honestly I don't know all the details of how Michelle's friend won the ACA contract or how Solyndra got the loan. The government bidding process is fairly complicated and it is harder to prove misconduct in such a case. For example, being a friend of the government official doesn't mean a company cannot submit a bid on a government product. It raises eyebrows but to prove that the Obama's somehow manipulated the bidding system is difficult. I would really just be speculating on the two questions you raise. Not that they aren't real concerns, I just don't know enough to pass judgement. Whereas Conway's alleged violation of the ethics statute is quite clear to see on the video. The severity is less, I would agree with that, but we still need to hold Trump and his staff accountable if we are true conservatives.

Barack and Michelle Obama Are About to Get Even Richer

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/14/barack-and-michelle-obama-are-about-to-get-even-more-rich.html

The White House doors may have closed on former President Barack Obama’s presidency, but for him and his wife Michelle, the path to lucrative new book deals and paid speeches is wide open.

The Obamas recently hired top-dollar attorneys Robert Barnett and Deneen Howell to handle their book contracts, and a high-profile public relations agency – known for repping the Clintons and Mia Farrow – to coordinate speaking appearances. The Obamas haven't yet set book-release dates or announced any scheduled speeches.

The Harry Walker Agency, which exclusively represents former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former vice presidents Dick Cheney and Al Gore, will handle the Obamas’ post-White House speeches, according to Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis.

In the private sector, the former president stands to earn more than half of his $400K annual presidential salary – per speech, Peter Shankman, founder and CEO of social media, marketing and PR strategy firm The Geek Factory, told FOX Business.

“No doubt [former President Obama’s] first speech could easily [command] $250k at minimum,” Shankman, whose firm’s clients have included American Express, Walt Disney World and The U.S. Department of Defense, said.

It’s not only the former president who will be fetching the big bucks. The former first lady will likely rake in an equal share, Shankman said.

“Michelle will also see numbers around [$250K per speech] for the first year as well,” he said. “Those fees probably won't drop anytime soon, when you stop and think about it, especially if Obama continues to be vocal, as he [has] said he would.”

These figures would be comparable to what former President Bill Clinton makes per speech, which was just shy of $250K in 2011, according to Hillary Clinton’s filings for the calendar year. Over the course of 54 speeches he made a total of $13,434,000 that year alone. Mrs. Clinton makes slightly less on average, at $235K a pop. From 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign, the pair earned $153 million combined in speaking fees, according to CNN.

On the other hand, former President George W. Bush makes between $100K-$175K per appearance, according to a 2015 analysis by Politico.

Another source of income for the Obamas will be book deals. Mr. Obama has already penned a number of books including, “Dreams From My Father,” “The Audacity of Hope” and “Of Thee I Sing.” These three books have earned him more than $10 million, according to financial disclosures.

While Bill Clinton received an advance of $15 million for his highly anticipated 2004 autobiography “My Life,” the world’s highest advance fee at the time, it is projected that the Obamas will dwarf Clinton with contracts that could amount to $20 million to $45 million, according to a report by the New York Times.

Mr. Obama will also receive a pension from the White House, as is the standard with every former president. This is expected to be about $207K per year.

While in office, each U.S. president earns a salary of $400,000. President Trump, who is the richest president to serve the country, has said he will refuse the salary, and will instead accept the legal minimum of $1 per year.

I think Conway was talking about the jewelry issue but then she blurted out how good it was and told people to go buy it. It wasn't like she made some sly comment about it being attractive or something.
Here is a video of the interview for context.

Obama administration giving loans or projects to friends is a separate ethics issue and much more complicated. Honestly I don't know all the details of how Michelle's friend won the ACA contract or how Solyndra got the loan. The government bidding process is fairly complicated and it is harder to prove misconduct in such a case. For example, being a friend of the government official doesn't mean a company cannot submit a bid on a government product. It raises eyebrows but to prove that the Obama's somehow manipulated the bidding system is difficult. I would really just be speculating on the two questions you raise. Not that they aren't real concerns, I just don't know enough to pass judgement. Whereas Conway's alleged violation of the ethics statute is quite clear to see on the video. The severity is less, I would agree with that, but we still need to hold Trump and his staff accountable if we are true conservatives.

Michelle Obama actually appeared in Subway commercials and endorsed their business and products.

According to the courts, the position of First Lady is a "de-facto" federal official, which means she was barred from endorsing or advertising for a particular business or product that does not directly coincide with her position.  Trying to get Americans to eat healthy was not a requirement of her position.

What Conway did was not appropriate, but it is not like she appeared on ads or HSN for a half hour promo!

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/23/us/court-rules-that-first-lady-is-de-facto-federal-official.html

Michelle Obama actually appeared in Subway commercials and endorsed their business and products.

According to the courts, the position of First Lady is a "de-facto" federal official, which means she was barred from endorsing or advertising for a particular business or product that does not directly coincide with her position.  Trying to get Americans to eat healthy was not a requirement of her position.

What Conway did was not appropriate, but it is not like she appeared on ads or HSN for a half hour promo!

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/23/us/court-rules-that-first-lady-is-de-facto-federal-official.html

Interesting, I had not heard of that case. Not quite the same conflict of interest though, unless they are good buddies with the owners of Subway or somehow serve to benefit. 

it makes a difference now since the media is at war with Trump. I noticed that CNN has a daily dose of anti Trump articles. You can't find anything positive to say about Trump with the media except Fox News and Breitbart.

Interesting, I had not heard of that case. Not quite the same conflict of interest though, unless they are good buddies with the owners of Subway or somehow serve to benefit.

Did you not read the regulation?  You know, the one you posted the link to??

(c) Endorsements. An employee shall
not use or permit the use of his Government
position or title or any authority
associated with his public office
to endorse any product, service or
enterprise except:
(1) In furtherance of statutory authority
to promote products, services
or enterprises; or
(2) As a result of documentation of
compliance with agency requirements
or standards or as the result of recognition
for achievement given under an
agency program of recognition for accomplishment
in support of the agency’s
mission.

it makes a difference now since the media is at war with Trump. I noticed that CNN has a daily dose of anti Trump articles. You can't find anything positive to say about Trump with the media except Fox News and Breitbart.

CNN and MSNBC are floundering and doing what they can to appeal to their Liberal viewers...

Did you not read the regulation?  You know, the one you posted the link to??

Michelle's actions do appear to violate the statute however it is not on the same ethical level of what Conway did. Conway was pushing a product that her boss would benefit from. Michelle just pushed a product.

Michelle's actions do appear to violate the statute however it is not on the same ethical level of what Conway did. Conway was pushing a product that her boss would benefit from. Michelle just pushed a product.

Michelle pushed a product her and her friends would benefit from. Difference is that no one cared cuz her last name was Obama.

Michelle's actions do appear to violate the statute however it is not on the same ethical level of what Conway did. Conway was pushing a product that her boss would benefit from. Michelle just pushed a product.

Nothing in the code requires anyone specific to benefit from the endorsement.  The code makes it illegal to USE THE POSITION to endorse a product , service or company.  PERIOD.  There is no greater or lesser degree of unethical.

To that point, Conway, as an advisor and counselor to the President, has less public recognition than Michelle Obama.  A First Lady using her title and image to promote a product carries more weight than someone most people could not name if shown her picture.  Therefore, the First Lady's doing commerically placed Subway ads on a variety of media was much more unethical than Comway making an offhanded comment on a news show interview that the vast majority of people will never, ever see -- unless and until the Democrats make a big deal out of it.  Free advertising for Ivanka!!  More winning!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/23/michelle-obama-becomes-newest-face-promote-subway-/





I think that is more blatant than Conway.

I think Conway was talking about the jewelry issue but then she blurted out how good it was and told people to go buy it. It wasn't like she made some sly comment about it being attractive or something.
Here is a video of the interview for context.


Obama administration giving loans or projects to friends is a separate ethics issue and much more complicated. Honestly I don't know all the details of how Michelle's friend won the ACA contract or how Solyndra got the loan. The government bidding process is fairly complicated and it is harder to prove misconduct in such a case. For example, being a friend of the government official doesn't mean a company cannot submit a bid on a government product. It raises eyebrows but to prove that the Obama's somehow manipulated the bidding system is difficult. I would really just be speculating on the two questions you raise. Not that they aren't real concerns, I just don't know enough to pass judgement. Whereas Conway's alleged violation of the ethics statute is quite clear to see on the video. The severity is less, I would agree with that, but we still need to hold Trump and his staff accountable if we are true conservatives.

You haven't worked in the Government world of contracting, have you?  If you did, you probably wouldn't be making such statements.

Do people get away with fraud and abuse?  Sure.  It's not that easy.  Hell, even a whiff of a POSSIBLE appearance of impropriety, and I get slapped.  Then again, I am not part of "the elite", but isn't that the point of the changes we are seeing taking place now. 

My point is, you often speculate on things that you have ZERO knowledge of.  Not that I am an expert in this case, but you really aren't arguing from a solid base here.  By all means, carry on, but just sayin. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/23/michelle-obama-becomes-newest-face-promote-subway-/


I think that is more blatant than Conway.

Certainly documented publicly.  Then again, it's nice to be untouchable. . . [sarcasm off]

And while some may argue that Michelle Obama was doing this as part of her fitness / nutritional campaign Subway is not that far from McDs or other fast food rests.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/study-subway-no-healthier-mcdonald-article-1.1340434

Where was the outcry then?
None you know why? She was the first black First Lady and people ate that up. No pun intended. No one questioned what they did and here we are.

And while some may argue that Michelle Obama was doing this as part of her fitness / nutritional campaign Subway is not that far from McDs or other fast food rests.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/study-subway-no-healthier-mcdonald-article-1.1340434

Where was the outcry then?
None you know why? She was the first black First Lady and people ate that up. No pun intended. No one questioned what they did and here we are.

Would've been labeled as racist. . .

I don't agree with most of what Farakkhan preaches but some of his points are worth listening to.



Trump doesn't need money and can't be bought. I believe that Trump is for the people and the people that put Obama in are very angry that they can't control this President.

Obama was bought.
Not implicit evidence but here are some indicators of corruption at that level
http://www.businessinsider.com/rod-blagojevich-convictions-tossed-out-2015-7
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4391613/Rod-Blagojevich-convicted-of-trying-to-sell-Barack-Obamas-Illinois-seat.html