Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhite House: Conway acted 'without nefarious motive' in Ivanka Trump plug (Won't be disciplined.)
Source: CNNMoney
White House: Conway acted 'without nefarious motive' in Ivanka Trump plug
by Cristina Alesci and Jill Disis @CNNMoney
March 1, 2017: 12:17 PM ET
The White House has concluded that Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to President Trump, was acting "without nefarious motive" when she plugged Ivanka Trump's products in a TV interview, according to a letter obtained by CNNMoney.
The letter, from the White House to the Office of Government Ethics, says a White House lawyer met with Conway to review federal rules prohibiting endorsements by government employees. It makes no mention of plans for disciplinary action.
"Upon completion of our inquiry, we concluded that Ms. Conway acted inadvertently and is highly unlikely to do so again," says the letter, signed by Stefan C. Passantino, a White House deputy counsel for compliance and ethics.
"It is noted that Ms. Conway made the statement in question in a light, off-hand manner while attempting to stand up for a person she believed had been unfairly treated and did so without nefarious motive or intent to benefit personally," the letter says.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
by Cristina Alesci and Jill Disis @CNNMoney
March 1, 2017: 12:17 PM ET
The White House has concluded that Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to President Trump, was acting "without nefarious motive" when she plugged Ivanka Trump's products in a TV interview, according to a letter obtained by CNNMoney.
The letter, from the White House to the Office of Government Ethics, says a White House lawyer met with Conway to review federal rules prohibiting endorsements by government employees. It makes no mention of plans for disciplinary action.
"Upon completion of our inquiry, we concluded that Ms. Conway acted inadvertently and is highly unlikely to do so again," says the letter, signed by Stefan C. Passantino, a White House deputy counsel for compliance and ethics.
"It is noted that Ms. Conway made the statement in question in a light, off-hand manner while attempting to stand up for a person she believed had been unfairly treated and did so without nefarious motive or intent to benefit personally," the letter says.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/01/news/kellyanne-conway-ivanka-trump-white-house-letter/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 977 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
White House: Conway acted 'without nefarious motive' in Ivanka Trump plug (Won't be disciplined.) (Original Post)
Eugene
Mar 2017
OP
Republicans would have called for a congressional hearing if that was a dem
Angry Dragon
Mar 2017
#4
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)1. So much for the Party of Personal Responsibility, huh?
Vinca
(50,323 posts)2. Is Ivanka hawking her speech apparel today?
This entire administration is nothing more than a money-making scheme.
underpants
(182,988 posts)3. The mustard stain pretty much indicates it came from Bannon's office
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)4. Republicans would have called for a congressional hearing if that was a dem
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)6. Well, hell only 'NEFARIOUS' motives are prosecutable?
Now we must know what's in your heart?