in some ways it probably is similar to the robert kennedy example. robert kennedy was attorney general for his brother and it was soon after that that congress actually put the nepotism law in place saying that you couldn t put relatives into a position working for you if you re in government. the this administration is taking the position that that doesn t apply to the white house. they ve gotten some sign out from the department of justice. i m not sure if that s the right view but that s what they re saying and that s what they ve got an opinion to back. it creates the same problem that you want the best people in a position who are going to bring a diversity of backgrounds and not giving people the power to essentially surround themselves with their family and make their family more powerful. i feel like if it was up to both presidents, they would
positive step, a white house in ethics crisis. no wonder they re under investigation for russia affair. ambassador, you are a former white house czar. in terms of the nepotism law, does it apply? because the white house cleary seems to thing it doesn t. the question of whether ivanka was an employee was a clear one. she was. i m glad they conceded it. my view it s a bipartisan view. the bush ethics czar agrees with me. the nepotism statute does apply. in both the bush and obama administration for decades the justice department held, yes, the nepotism statute does apply to the white house office. now, it s a murky area, reasonable minds can disagree. president trump got an opinion from the justice department that the nepotism statute doesn t
later has to choose between what s good for the country and his family. the security clearance, the other obligations mean that ultimately, she is trying to be like a formal federal employee and meet the standards, but unlikely to be treated or fired like one. we she can t be promoted into the cabinet or anything like that. the 1967 nepotism law forbids that. there is this loophole legally as an adviser. when she announced last week she was going to be an informal adviser and was in the process of getting security clearance, experts said the move wasn t good because it d allow her to avoid financial disclosure rules. she said, i have heard the concerns some have with my advising the president in my personal capacity while voluntarily complying with rules. i ll be an unpaid employee, subject to the same rules as other federal employees. what does that mean for a practical matter? what financial information will she have to turn over, and will
business interests and not make money? nothing lucrative while she is in the white house? alisyn, that is not quite right. like her father, she is insisting on the right to maintain ownership of her business. it is true. she won t make decisions. she is handing off management. she is maintaining ownership. she has a financial interest which raises questions about confli conflicts. while the question of whether or not this nepotism, mr. kushner on one side of the throne, ivanka trump on the other with their father and father-in-law respectively in the mid. it is not allowed by nepotism law, many say it is not allowed. there is an argument about that. is it a good idea? do we want a country that is run
she is the daughter of the president. she is working for free. she is volunteering her time. because she is not collecting a salary it skirts nepotism laws? everybody from the white house counsel to the doj says this doesn t violate nepotism rules. we should be heralding the fact. answer that, norm. for decades, doj and the white house and in the obama white house where i worked, enforced this rule and the bush white house held that nepotism law and it did apply to the white house. the better reading of the law it does apply. whether the law applies or not, it is not a good idea to have these two kids who have no government experience whatsoever. that s good. look what the political professionals have done? they skrucrewed up.