Thursday morning Kellyanne Conway appeared on Fox & Friends to implore viewers to "Go buy Ivanka's stuff!" She made the remarks in a remote appearance from the White House, with the White House logo as the backdrop of the interview and the reaction was swift and unanimous: this “commercial” (Kellyanne’s own word) for Ivanka Trump’s clothing line was a violation of federal law.
Richard Painter, former Chief Ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, agreed it was clear violation, but he went even further. In an interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, he says the bigger concern is Donald Trump’s intimidation of Nordstrom. Watch and jump below for the transcript:
PAINTER: Well, the government ethics rules, the standards of conduct for federal employees make it very clear that you may not use public office for private gain. A U.S. Government employee, including a white house staff member, may not in an official speech, official capacity a TV interview, promote the products or services of a business owned by his family or by the president's family, or anybody else. So that is illegal under the standards of conduct for federal employees.
Much more important, however, is the president's tweet really attacking Nordstrom for its decision to drop his daughter's -- the president's daughter's line of clothing. This is a direct attack on the company. It's intimidation. This company does business with every branch -- just about every branch of the federal government. And now we are being told that Nordstrom is persona non grata with this administration.
We have in this administration seen attacks on the freedom of religion, attacks on the freedom of press, on the independent judiciary, and now on the free enterprise decision. Business people are entitled to make business decisions free of intimidation. We do not have to do business with the president's family in the United States of America. That's not the way it works. I think the American people are getting fed up with this type of conduct. This is not the type of person we want in the white house. If he is going to conduct himself in this manner, pressuring people to buy his family's products and using the white house to do that. That is entirely inappropriate and it's got to stop.
MITCHELL: Let me just raise a question which they would no doubt raise. When they say that it is no longer the president's family business because they claim they have separated themselves now. Let me have your insights on that.
PAINTER: I don't care who owns the business. It's pretty clear that this is Ivanka's line of clothing. But I don't care who owns the business. The White House should not be used to promote products for specific companies. In particular, those that are run by people who that are connected with the president's family or anyone in the white house. And most important, we should never have an effort to intimidate a business such as Nordstrom for its own decisions in a free market. This is a free market economy we have in the United States. And American voters are committed to a free market economy, particularly many of us in the Republican primary and this kind of conduct has got to stop. And Congress needs to hold the president accountable. And that -- if the members of congress aren't going to do their job we are going to see interesting primaries coming up. We are getting fed up, those of us committed to American values, particularly our free enterprise
MITCHELL: I’ll also point out, since we haven't seen the tax returns, we don't know who owns what. And there was a report in the last weekend or the weekend before that it was not a irrevocable trust it was a revocable trust in term of the president's trust. We don't know who is pulling the levers here.
PAINTER: He has conflicts of interest problems, foreign policy problems. Many of us have been urging the president, ever since he was elected, to separate himself from his business concerns and focus on running our country. What we are seeing is exactly the opposite. The president is obsessed with his own businesses, with his family's businesses. He is using the official presidential Twitter account for that purpose. And the white house staff, instead of reigning him in they are running around shelling for his businesses. This is not the way a white house ought to run. And I think it's about time that Congress needs to hold the president accountable for doing his job.
About those tax returns … where is Donald Trump’s money? Does he own part of Ivanka Trump’s clothing company? Is he an investor? Andrea Mitchell initially said “they claim they have separated themselves now,” but Ivanka has only removed herself from the management of the company. She still owns it, still profits from it. Is Donald Trump also profiting? These are the potentially illegal conflicts that will never come to light without transparency. Donald Trump owes it to the American people to release his tax returns and make his investments known. From Mar-A-Lago membership fees doubling overnight to $200,000 (easy access to the president!) to his business and real estate developments overseas, there are far too many ways for this administration to use the White House for their own personal profit, all at the expense of taxpayers.
In regards to Kellyanne Conway’s illegal actions, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer says she has been "counseled on the subject" of promoting Ivanka Trump’s clothing line.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has sent Rep. Jason Chaffetz a letter asking to refer the matter for disciplinary action:
“This appears to be a textbook violation of government ethics laws and regulations enacted to prevent the abuse of an employee’s government position,” Cummings wrote. “Since the Committee has direct jurisdiction over the ethics laws applicable to White House employees, I request that the Committee make an official referral of this matter to the Office of Government Ethics and request that it report back to the Committee as soon as possible with its findings.”
Barely had time to hit publish before Chaffetz announces sign on to Cummings’ letter: