Active Now

RosieG
excon
Zack
Nanoose
TRUMP-SELF-DEFEATING MEDIA HO
Randy D
Shuhak
Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » Are repeated and deliberate violations of the 1967 anti-nepotism law (nicknamed the "Bobby Kennedy Law" an impeachable offense?

Are repeated and deliberate violations of the 1967 anti-nepotism law (nicknamed the "Bobby Kennedy Law" an impeachable offense?

As if any more are necessary - even Ivanka doesn't want the UN Ambassador's job.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110

Posted - October 14, 2018

Responses


  • 3702
    Probably. In concert with the many other “questionable“ actions of the current POTUS, like ongoing violations of the Emoluments clause, one could at least argue a case for impeachment. But regardless of any evidence, getting it through the lame and ridiculous Congress is another matter...

    Impeachment or no, I will argue here that Trump’s unfitness for office is obvious beyond doubt. The majority of our elected officials lack the fortitude to challenge it publicly. 
      October 14, 2018 8:54 AM MDT
    2

  • 9558
    "Fortitude" is not the word I would use.

    EDIT for grammar. This post was edited by SpunkySenior at October 14, 2018 1:38 PM MDT
      October 14, 2018 1:34 PM MDT
    1

  • 3702
    I contemplated other words. I get deleted a lot. ;) 
      October 14, 2018 1:39 PM MDT
    2

  • 9558
    I've learned my lesson. :)
      October 14, 2018 4:04 PM MDT
    2

  • 22380
    its possible
      October 14, 2018 2:38 PM MDT
    0

  • 15080
    No. The only punishment listed by the law is the relative must return any moneys paid....they are not being paid.
    President Trump is not keeping his pay. He regularly donates to different departments of the gov.
      October 25, 2018 8:06 AM MDT
    1

  • 7860
    That's not what it says. RFK wasn't being paid either.
    "a public official may not appoint, employ, promote or advance" a relative in an agency "in which he us serving or over which he exercises jurisdictional control".
    It was used as a basis against Rosalynn Carter and Marilyn Quayle from serving (unpaid) on Commissions, and there were rumbles when it was suspected that Hillary would get a Federal post in Bill's administration (she didn't).
    Trump obviously believes himself to be above the rule of law. Which straw will break the camel's back?
      November 13, 2018 6:30 AM MST
    2

  • 15080
    And if you read the rest, there is no penalty other than to return any moneys paid. Says nothing of removal etc.

    Hillary did serve on a commission on healthcare during Bills term in 1993...she was the head of that commission.

    Link to RFK not being paid as AG? This post was edited by my2cents at November 14, 2018 3:07 PM MST
      November 13, 2018 6:53 AM MST
    3