Dept. Of Justice Issues 14-Page Memo Declaring That Donald Trump Hiring His Son-In-Law Does Not Violate Federal Anti-Nepotism Laws Dept. Of Justice Issues 14-Page Memo Declaring That Donald Trump Hiring His Son-In-Law Does Not Violate Federal Anti-Nepotism Laws
By Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com
January 23, 2017


ABOUT THIS SITE MOST RECENT ARTICLESRADIO INTERVIEWSVIDEOS
ZIONISM FREEMASONRYFILMING COPSFIGHTING TRAFFIC TICKETS
9/11= Inside Job VACCINES= POISONRED-LIGHT CAMERASEUGENICS=MURDER
NEW SECTION: CATHOLICISM LibertyFight.com CLASSICSHISTORICAL QUOTESALL WARS ARE BANKERS WARS!


At 1:00pm on Friday, The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a 14-page memo declaring that President Trump can hire his son-in-law Jared Kushner and that it does not violate federal anti-nepotism laws. Many legal precedents and court cases are cited as evidence for their decision in the very wordy document.

The document, a MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT dated January 20, 2017, the same day that Trump was sworn in, is titled Application of the Anti-Nepotism Statute to a Presidential Appointment in the White House Office and begins "Section 105(a) of title 3, U.S. Code, which authorizes the President to appoint employees in the White House Office 'without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compensation of persons in the Government service,' exempts positions in the White House Office from the prohibition on nepotism in 5 U.S.C. Section 311."

It points out recent historical instances where Jimmy Carter's wife and Obama's siblings were prohibited from being hired for positions. However, they note "Our Office, on several occasions, has addressed the application of section 3110 to presidential appointments, including appointments to the White House Office and other entities within the Executive Office of the President. Although our conclusion today departs from some of that prior work, we think that this departure is fully justified."

Another example they give is when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed his son "at the White House as a civilian aide," which was allowed. (I can't wait for the snowflakes to start screaming 'So Trump's son-in-law can be hired with no problemo, but Jimmy Carter's WIFE and Barry's BLACK brother and sista are forbidden?!?!?! "RACIST! SEXIST! MISCGYNIST!" LOL!)

The document states, "Thus, according to the most natural and straightforward reading of section 105(a), the President may appoint relatives as employees in the White House Office 'without regard to' the anti-nepotism statute."

The office concludes, "Finally, we believe that this result - that the President may appoint relatives to his immediate staff of advisors in the White House Office - makes sense when considered in light of other applicable legal principles. Congress has not blocked, and most likely could not block, the President from seeking advice from family members in their personal capacities... Consequently, even if the anti-nepotism statute prevented the President from employing relatives in the White House as advisors, he would remain free to consult those relatives as private citizens."

I should note that LibertyFight has been reporting extensively on Talmud-trained Jared Kushner for nearly two years, long before Trump even won the GOP nomination. The biggest danger or red-flag is not that Kushner is family, but rather, where his true loyalties lie - to America or Israel. You can read our research on Kushner and our latest recap here: Trump's Son-In-Law Jared Kushner Invites Bush-Cheney Insider To Serve As Key Advisor In Trump White House. I was a guest on Dr. Kevin Barrett's radio show to discuss Kushner on April 27, 2016. You can listen here: Martin Hill on Trump's Zionist son-in-law.

Here is a prime example of Kushner's influence. On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at a campaign event in Manchester, New Hampshire, a very polite elderly gentleman at a town hall told Donald Trump he's "opposed to wasting our military in the Middle East on behalf of Zionist Israel." Trump characterized the man as "NASTY!" and Jared Kushner later recounted this incident and praised Trump's response to the elderly gentleman, whom Kushner described as a "real racist," an "anti-semite," and derided the "most fringe of his (Trump's) supporters."

Kushner is the grandson of alleged 'holocaust survivors' and says that his grandpa literally lived in a hole in the ground for three years to hide from the evil Nazis. Kushner's newspaper has characterized 9/11 Truth as "toxic silliness, bizarre Internet theorizing by fools & charlatans about how the Twin Towers were "really" destroyed by Jews, Illuminati, or space aliens."

The OLC document continues - the following are excerpts of interest.


"You have asked whether section 3110 of title 5, U.S. Code, which forbids a public official from appointing a relative "to a civilian position in the agency . . . over which [the official] exercises jurisdiction or control," bars the President from appointing his son-in-law to a position in the White House Office, where the President's immediate personal staff of advisors serve. We conclude that section 3110 does not bar this appointment because the President’s special hiring authority in 3 U.S.C. § 105(a) exempts positions in the White House Office from section 3110. A decision of the D.C. Circuit, Haddon v. Walters, 43 F.3d 1488 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (per curiam), lays out a different, but overlapping, route to the same result. According to the reasoning of Haddon, section 3110 does not reach an appointment in the White House Office because section 3110 covers only appointments in an "agency," which the statute defines to include "Executive agenc[ies]," and the White House Office is not an "Executive agency" within the definition generally applicable to title 5. Although our analysis does not track every element of the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning about the meaning of "Executive agency," we believe that Haddon arrived at the correct outcome and that our conclusion here - that, because of the President's special hiring authority for the White House Office, section 3110 does not forbid the proposed appointment - squares with both the holding and a central part of the analysis in that case.

...In 1977, we advised that section 3110 would preclude the President from appointing the First Lady to serve as chair of the President's Commission on Mental Health ("Mental Health Commission"), whether with or without compensation Re: Possible Appointment of Mrs. Carter as Chairman of the Commission on Mental Health (Feb. 18, 1977

...Shortly afterward, the White House asked us to answer that very question: whether section 3110 applied to the contemplated appointment of the President's son to serve as an unpaid assistant to a member of the White House staff. See Memorandum for the Attorney General from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Employment of Relatives Who Will Serve Without Compensation (Mar. 23, 1977)

...In 1983, we were asked whether the President could appoint a relative to a Presidential Advisory Committee on Private Sector Initiatives ("CPSI"). See Memorandum for David B. Waller, Senior Associate Counsel to the President, from Robert B. Shanks, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Appointment of Member of President's Family to Presidential Advisory Committee on Private Sector Initiatives (Feb. 28, 1983). We answered that the President's proposed appointment of a relative to the CPSI raised "virtually the same problems raised by Mrs. Carter's proposed service on the President's Commission on Mental Health." Id. at 2. Because we lacked "sufficient time to reexamine the legal analysis contained in our earlier memoranda," we stated that we had no choice but to "adhere to the conclusion" that "the President cannot, consistently with section 3110, appoint a relative as an active member of such a Commission." Id. Most recently, we advised whether the President could appoint his brother-inlaw and his half-sister to two advisory committees. Once again, we found that section 3110 precluded the appointments. See Memorandum for Gregory B. Craig, Counsel to the President, from David J. Barron, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Application of 5 U.S.C. § 3110 to Two Proposed Appointments by the President to Advisory Committees (Sept. 17, 2009)


...Finally, we believe that this result - that the President may appoint relatives to his immediate staff of advisors in the White House Office - makes sense when considered in light of other applicable legal principles. Congress has not blocked, and most likely could not block, the President from seeking advice from family members in their personal capacities. Cf. In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 728 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (referring to the President’s need, "[i]n making decisions on personnel and policy, and in formulating legislative proposals, . . . to seek confidential information from many sources, both inside the government and outside"); Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 466 (1989) (construing the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") not to apply to the judicial recommendation panels of the American Bar Association in order to avoid "formidable constitutional difficulties"). Consequently, even if the anti-nepotism statute prevented the President from employing relatives in the White House as advisors, he would remain free to consult those relatives as private citizens. See Barron Opinion at 8–9 (finding the application of section 3110 to presidential advisory committees constitutional in part because "[t]he President remains free to consult his relatives in their private, individual capacities at the time and place of, and on the subjects of, his choosing"). And our Office has found that such an informal, "essentially personal" advisory relationship, even if the private person offers advice to the President on a "wide variety of issues," does not make that person an employee of the federal government subject to the conflict of interest laws in title 18. Status of an Informal Presidential Advisor as a "Special Government Employee", 1 Op. O.L.C. 20, 20–21 (1977) ("Informal Presidential Advisor"); see also id. at 22 (“Mrs. Carter would not be regarded as a special Government employee solely on the ground that she may discuss governmental matters with the President on a daily basis.").7

... But the conflict of interest laws do apply to employees of the White House Office

...A President wanting a relative’s advice on governmental matters therefore has a choice: to seek that advice on an unofficial, ad hoc basis without conferring the status and imposing the responsibilities that accompany formal White House positions; or to appoint his relative to the White House under title 3 and subject him to substantial restrictions against conflicts of interest... In choosing his personal staff, the President enjoys an unusual degree of freedom, which Congress found suitable to the demands of his office. Any appointment to that staff, however, carries with it a set of legal restrictions, by which Congress has regulated and fenced in the conduct of federal officials.

...In our view, section 105(a) of title 3 exempts appointments to the White House Office from the bar in section 3110 of title 5. Section 3110 therefore would not prohibit the contemplated appointment.

DANIEL L. KOFFSKY Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel

LINK: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2017/01/20/2017-01-20-anti-nepo-stat-who_0.pdf


You can find the most recent articles from LibertyFight.com here.

To get notice of the latest material you can follow LibertyFight on Twitter or contact me to join our e-mail list.

NOTE: The 'DISQUS' feature has been added to this site so you can leave your comments below. No login is required, you can post as a guest.

WRH Link: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/content/dept-justice-issues-14-page-lego-memo-declaring-donald-trump-hiring-his-son-law-does-not-vio.

Martin Hill is a Catholic paleo-conservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 TV Los Angeles, The Press Enterprise, LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened.com, Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, Economic Policy Journal, FreedomsPhoenix, Haaretz, TMZ, Veterans Today, Jonathan Turley blog, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, National Motorists Association, AmericanFreePress.net, RomanCatholicReport.com, WorldNetDaily, HenryMakow.com, OverdriveOnline.com, Educate-Yourself.org, TexeMarrs.com, Dr. Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad radio show, Strike-The-Root.com, Antiwar.com, Mark Glenn's 'The Ugly Truth' Blog & radio show, Michael Hoffman's RevisionistHistory.org, John Friend's TheRealistReport.com, Pasadena Weekly, ActivistPost.com, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI AM 640, IamtheWitness.com, Redlands Daily Facts, SaveTheMales.ca, BlackBoxVoting, The Michael Badnarik Show, The Wayne Madsen Report, Devvy.com, Rense.com, FromTheTrenchesWorldReport.com, BeforeItsNews.com, The Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, CopBlock.org, DavidIcke.com, Whittier Daily News, KCLA FM Hollywood, The Fullerton Observer, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com and DontWakeMeUp.Org.

Be sure to see my meeting with President Trump:



Featured Articles From LibertyFight.com:


Misc:



FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on LibertyFight.com may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC S. 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

You can follow LibertyFight.com on Twitter and re-tweet this article here.

comments powered by Disqus


Share this page: