Donald Trump is so used to trashing anyone he doesn’t agree with on Twitter that the habit has rapidly become a serious issue since he was sworn in as our 45th president. Now he may have finally crossed a clear legal line, and because every bit of news out of his administration is required by physical law to be totally absurd, the harmed party is Nordstrom.
So just to sum up: While an unconstitutional travel ban works its way through the Judiciary and an anti-abortion-leaning Supreme Court nominee waits to learn his fate, President Trump may now be in hot legal water with Nordstrom, the same place you purchased a birthday present for your aunt.
The President’s daughter Ivanka has a branded line of clothing and accessories, because of course she does. (Side note, said clothing and accessories are produced in China, because of course they are, and yes, those two shoes above are actual examples from the line.)
Last week Nordstrom announced it was dropping Ivanka’s line, citing declining sales. You can just guess how that went over with Daddy.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The President tweeted the following message from his personal account (@RealDonaldTrump), then followed up with a retweet from his government account (@potus):
My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017
By “always pushing me to do the right thing,” could the President be referring to reports that Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, had to talk him down from the ledge of signing a nasty antigay Executive Order last week?
It would seem all too likely, but that’s hardly the point.
Although the President has gone after companies on Twitter before, he now exposes a glaring conflict of interest (his daughter) in attacking Nordstrom via his official presidential Twitter account.
Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert, explained to the L.A. Times why this is so, so very problematic:
“The implicit threat was that he will use whatever authority he has to retaliate against Nordstrom, or anyone who crosses his interest.”
Larry Noble of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center shared a similar take on CNN:
“He should not be promoting his daughter’s line, he should not be attacking a company that has business dealings with his daughter, and it just shows the massive amount of problems we have with his business holdings and his family’s business holdings.”
If he was any other government employee, this would be illegal.”
Nordstrom has reiterated that it made the decision based on performance of the brand in its stores, but whether or not that’s true, the President is using his official capacity to lash out at a company because of its dealings with his family member.
When asked about it, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said that “[President Trump] has every right to stand up for his family and applaud their business activities, their success.”
“For someone to take out their concern with his policies on a family member of his is not acceptable,” he added.
The tweet sent Nordstrom’s stock seesawing throughout the day, though it regained its losses to finish out 4% higher than yesterday. Only time will tell if the President’s vendetta against the department store will last, or if it’s just his indignation du jour.
Norm Eisen, co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is urging the company to sue under the California Unfair Competition law, and offering to personally help:
Outrageous. @nordstrom, others injured should consider suing, incl. under CA Unfair Comp Law, forbidding "any unfair biz act." I will help! https://t.co/Y18Lml3rXk
— Norm Eisen (#TryingTrump out now!) (@NormEisen) February 8, 2017
trump! he caused the harm. let me know if you want to do it together @JoshACLU https://t.co/AFCJbS4rqR
— Norm Eisen (#TryingTrump out now!) (@NormEisen) February 8, 2017
wow, hadn't thought of that angle. also, think trump is defending his emoluments,warning others not 2withdraw payments 2him &family–or else https://t.co/mLJELpheNB
— Norm Eisen (#TryingTrump out now!) (@NormEisen) February 8, 2017
This most recent ridiculousness comes the same week we learned that Melania Trump is suing a newspaper and claiming she lost a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity to cash in on being First Lady after it was falsely reported, and subsequently retracted, that she once worked as an escort.
ShowMeGuy
Those are the f*cking ugliest shoes that I’ve ever seen.
kehvan
Doesn’t seem quite as bad as an attorney general secretly meeting the husband of someone who was the target of an investigation.
Mo Bro
Gays aren’t allowed to criticize Democrats—have you learned nothing from this site?
Only Republicans and their families are fair game.
And gay Republicans, of course. We’re the epitome of evil, apparently.
Juanjo
It is hilarious when Mo Broshi’ite and his sock puppets trot out a tu quoque argument based upon false facts and supposition to Breit’splain away an illegal action of Trump.
1EqualityUSA
800+ companies pulled advertising revenue away from Breitbart. I wonder how many will lose their jobs and write tell-alls to pay rent.
Dwight
Sean Spicer said that “[President Trump] has every right to stand up for his family and applaud their business activities, their success.”
Sorry, Sean, you’re redirecting just like Kellyanne Conartist. That tweet was not applauding his daughter’s business success He didn’t tweet “Ivanka has the most stylish and well made shoes. I’m so proud of my baby girl.” It was an attack on someone who no longer does business with her.
mhoffman953
I don’t remember there being any discussion on here about Obama’s conflicts of interest when Wikileaks exposed an email showing that Citi Bank executives helped pick his cabinet nominees.
Or when Obama would praise companies like Master Lock in his State of the Union address, mention the great work which Adidas is doing around the country, or advocate about various solar energy companies.
Even after the recession in 2008, Obama said at a 2009 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, “GM will rise or fall on the quality of its products –like the taut, athletic design of the new Buick Enclave. Its French-seamed leather and warm wood tones make the Enclave more than transportation. It’s a modern driver’s retreat. Come on, work with me here. I’ve got cars to move, people!” I guess that wasn’t a conflict of interest either.
I personally see no fault on either side of the aisle with candidates or people in the public sector praising or admonishing those in the private sector. This isn’t a big deal.
dwes09
A. Obama did not say those things attributed to him by you, undermining any actual point you might have had.
B. Whether or not you, little man that you are, sees something as a big deal or not had no bearing at all on whether or not it represents a conflict of interest.
C. There is a huge difference between a private person praising and admonishing a product, and the president of the United States threatening a private corporation for making a business decision he does not agree with that is neither illegal or unethical.
Mmmrrrggglll
Seriously? Number one, the White House Correspondent’s Dinner is known as a light-hearted affair, like a lite-weight roast. That brings us to number two, the president was making a joke. The government had just bailed out GM and it wasn’t clear at that point if they would be able to pay the loan back. The president was jokingly hocking GM products to get the taxpayer’s (maybe you? probably not.) money back. This in no way can be compared to the current president using his bully pulpit to attack his daughter’s business partners.
mhoffman953
@dwes09
You can easily Google anything I wrote above and see that Obama has said those things, I even provided you an exact word-for-word quote as well as the places he said some of those things. It is all verifiable. Obama even attacked the company Staples in an interview with Buzzfeed after he passed Obamacare for doing business practices (which were well in place before the passing of Obamacare) which were neither illegal or unethical. If we want to nitpick, we could even extend Obama’s comments toward gun companies, coal companies, and insurance companies as well, but that’s unnecessary. It would be nearly impossible to find a President in history who hasn’t commented on a private business or industry in a either a positive or negative fashion.
As far as you saying Trump threatened Nordstrom’s, I don’t see anything threatening in the statement. A threat is when someone offers a punishment in their statement. No where do I see him suggesting the government would take action against that company.
Also, what’s with the constant name calling from you? If you aren’t criticizing someone’s race by claiming they aren’t “black” or attacking someone for allegedly not being “gay”, you now attack me by saying “little man”. If you don’t agree with me, then fine. No need for name calling. I’d assume you’d have better decorum but I guess I was wrong.
Juanjo
Classic troll tactic – “you can look up anything I wrote”. Nope, sorry troll but if you make a claim like your supposed quotes, the burden is on YOU to provide a link to verify the quote and the context. After all “text without context is pretext”.
mhoffman953
@Juanjo
So basically if you don’t agree with something, you just label everyone you don’t agree with as a troll and rather not research an issue. Fine, I’ll give you the links:
Obama’s quote regarding GM: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/443886/whats-difference-between-praising-company-and-endorsing-it
Obama’s quote regarding GM in the book Public Papers of the President: http://bit.ly/2ltWSeK
Obama endorses MasterLock: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/feb/01/barack-obama/president-obama-says-master-lock-has-brought-back-/
Obama praises MasterLock: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/master-lock-obama-insourcing_n_1279724.html
Obama sides with Adidas: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/11/05/rgiii-sponsor-adidas-announces-support-for-high-schools-that-want-to-drop-native-american-mascots/?utm_term=.a68447203bbf
Obama praises Adidas: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-obama-adidas-idUSKCN0SU38M20151106
But yeah, keep believing I’m trolling. It’s nearly impossible for a President to not side or stand against a company in the private sector because of his role. No ethics laws are in violation for Obama or Trump. Thus, this is a non-issue
mhoffman953
@Juanjo
My original comment wasn’t approved probably because it was filled with links since you wanted sources. Until it’s approved, I’ll try just posting the first part of my response.
Obama’s quote regarding GM is found in this article
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/443886/whats-difference-between-praising-company-and-endorsing-it
I had more links to it but maybe my response was considered spam. Not sure why you feel the need to think whenever someone disagrees with you that they’re a troll
gayjim1969
In none of those comments did Pres. Obama promote, praise or admonish any companies in regards to his personal or familiar business benefit. Unlike Pres. Trump, who has just done so–not just in his speeches, meetings, and personal Twitter account, but also on his official Twitter account.
So, you don’t have a problem with “candidates or people in the private sector praising or admonishing those in the private sector?” There’s only one problem with your logic: Trump is no longer a candidate, nor in the private sector. He is the POTUS and the head of the executive branch of the United States: he is now going to be held to a higher standard than he’s used to whether he and his supporters like it or not.
gayjim1969
“familiar business” should be “familial business”
1EqualityUSA
Now when I see MHoffman, that’s as far as I get. Don’t bother reading him. Jaded, negative, BS’er. Obama is without scandal.
Mo Bro
1EqualityUSA:
Saying Obama was “without scandal” is the most obtuse statement you’ve ever made on this site. Just because the left won’t acknowledge them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Kind of like Islamic terrorists.
I would suggest you educate yourself rather than burying your head in the sand. Unless, of course, clueless sycophancy is your forte.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/02/18-major-scandals-obama-presidency/
1EqualityUSA
And you send me to Breitbart for my education? Hahahahahhahahahahhahahhaa Wow tero bro, you really work your thing don’t you. Hahahahaha
drumstick
It’s a clear attempt to intervene and protect his the assets of his family’s business. Not to mention the Ivanka’s husband is in his cabinet. This is a conflict of interest as a public official.
The man is dangerously clueless of his job.
That the American public, like some on this list, is unable to see the blatant conflict of interest does not bode well for the future of the country. #thenewbananarepublic
Jack Meoff
Wow can this get any more embarrassing for the American people. Who is running the country while he tweets about all this stuff. Nordstram (and anyone else who has a claim) should sue his ass just to bury him in law suits. Blatant abuse of his position.
PRINCE OF SNARKNESS aka DIVKID
I think we would be wise to call off the attack dogs on her — or call a moratorium — in case she actually is an ally on LGBT issues and she truly has her fathers ear. I know there are other non-ilgbt ssues at stake too and they need to do what’s necessary for them too. that’s why intersectionality doesn’t always work. *see also conservative anti-abortio, pro-sharia Muslim women at pro-life women’s rally …BUT no pro-life “feminists” , trans with placards protesting vaginas being associated with women as bigotry, madness
PRINCE OF SNARKNESS aka DIVKID
I’m making a distinction between actual moderate Muslim feminists and conservative Muslim women who support sharia law, modesty culture, and are ant-abortion. In an official anti-islamaphobia rally their presence would be fine.
Ditto not all trans at the women’s rally where of the batshit divisive variety
PRINCE OF SNARKNESS aka DIVKID
To be clear intersectiomaliity is good where it genuinely works but not where the underlying ideologies are fundamentally diametrically opposed/ aims are incompatible.
Ivanka could be a bridge. If she’s a moderate on LGBT she might be moderate on those other issues too. As for Trump and the others they’re fair game obviously.
ScaryRussianHeather
Not a major conflict of interest at all. When retailers and even the Liberals of the public chose to organize and co-ordinate actions which openly attack his family members because of his policies, he has the right to hit back.
This is NOT your fathers’ Republican, in case you haven’t noticed.
SOME day, you’ll all understand his strategy. You know…the one that got him into the White House after genius Obama decided to openly mock and dare him.
ChrisK
Yeah, the Vladimir Putin strategy.
1EqualityUSA
Lawrence O’Donnell has been so on it lately. “What if Obama had done that?” Intriguing segment. Trump is a man who appears with no political scars. If President Obama had Yemen-ed over dinner on his fifth day in Office, they would be breaking out the torches and pitchforks. Emoluments Clause, be damned. 1,439 days left to go.
btrmale
He’s absolutely impossible! But the scary thing is, if we get him out of office we have Pence. And I think he’s actually scarier than Trump
1EqualityUSA
If this is how Trump is going to run his Administration, no wonder he filed for bankruptcy six times, leaving others holding the bag. Morally bankrupt.
FnameLname
it gets worse day after day….how many more bricks have to fall before the rest see what has been obvious to us for quite some time…. this Presidency is not about making America great again…America has always been great. It’s about making money for him, his family and his rich buddies. Even his wife has chimed in suing because she might have lost the opportunity to make millions as the First Lady after a blog posted she might have escorted. Obviously Trump’s daug
FnameLname
daughter is not going to start making her products in America. His executive orders will prove to be important as long as he doesn’t have to abide by them.
FnameLname
daughter is not going to start making her products in America. His executive orders will prove to be important as long as he doesn’t have to abide by them.
GayEGO
As usual, Trump responds with garbage. Spicer says spicy things but really does not know the law. Trump must disconnect himself from his businesses and his daughter’s clothes are nothing to do with his running our country, which so far he is failing to do. His general, non-specific ban on Muslim immigrants from the seven countries, that do not have his businesses I might add, is a Hitler type order and one that he did not research on. This is why our checks and balances are challenging him to see if he does the right thing by improving his order and being more specific.