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

raccoon

(31,111 posts) Thu Jan 19, 2017, 05:00 PM Jan 2017

Question for you about an anti-nepotism statute.

"Trump appointed Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, to a top WH post, possibly violating the 1967 federal anti-nepotism statute."

OK...does that mean if JFK couldn't have appointed RFK as his Attorney General, if JFK had
been elected, say in 1968 or later?

(Also don't see how DT can get away with it, either.)

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Question for you about an anti-nepotism statute. (Original Post) raccoon Jan 2017 OP

Trump does not really like him so it is okay Angry Dragon Jan 2017 #1

The anti-nepotism statute was passed precisely COLGATE4 Jan 2017 #2

Angry Dragon

(36,693 posts)

1. Trump does not really like him so it is okay

Reply to raccoon (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 05:14 PM

Jan 2017

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)

2. The anti-nepotism statute was passed precisely

Reply to raccoon (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 07:26 PM

Jan 2017

because JFK appointed Bobby as AG. Before JFK no one had ever considered making their brother a cabinet officer and no statute prohibiting it was thought necessary.

Reply to this discussion