What is it like when a Trump supporter has this thought: "What if Trump brought all of this on himself?" The question must present itself, at least occasionally, bubbling up from the subconscious mind. Yet, it must be disturbing, because it is tantamount to asking oneself: "What if I've been wrong in my ardent support of Trump for all of this time?" Also, when you're part of a movement -- if you have friends and family that know you are a staunch Trump supporter -- there is peer pressure not to back down. So, the conscious choice seems to be to either keep supporting Trump to avoid the shame of having to admit one is wrong, or renounce Trump and move on. Imagine going to church and the other congregants all know you as a loyal Trump supporter. It's part of your identify, and you've even intertwined your religious and political beliefs. Perhaps it is at this point when one feels motivated to sketch a white Jesus sitting next to Trump in a courtroom.

I like presidents who didn't pretend to have bone spurs to get out military service. Or maybe he didn't pretend! Maybe, just maybe, the bone spurs magically disappeared after 1968... Like Covid was supposed to disappear -- just go away -- it will be like a miracle! -- in the summer of 2020! Trump sure doesn't seem to have a history of limping or any obvious physical disability that interferes with his mobility. We never hear "Sorry, I can't golf because of these damn bone spurs!" That might have been an excuse for why he couldn't walk to the Capitol with the January 6th protestors, though!

I'm still not clear on what the impeachment inquiry is about. What is the impeachable offense Joe Biden is being investigated for? Is it bribery? If so, what is the accusation, exactly? For example, if it was that Joe Biden accepted a bribe from China in exchange for doing something that threatened US national security, I would understand that accusation and then ask for the evidence. I can't make sense of the mare's nest of links and articles online, and to me it looks like Republicans are all over the place on their accusations or what they want to impeach Biden for. I've seen everything from Mexico border security to how he handled the pull out of Afghanistan to conspiracies with Ukraine or China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Joe_Biden

Call me a skeptic, but it seems like 'color-blindness' was only claimed as a virtue by white guys when they wanted to push back on affirmative action, reparations, Critical Race Theory, etc. They weren't promoting 'color-blindness' as a virtue when blackface was the height of comedy. Well, maybe a few were, but not many. In an ideal society, we would be color blind to superficial differences like skin color, but an ideal society also wouldn't have a history of race prejudice and slavery. The reality is we have a history of gross inequalities based on skin color and appearance that continue to have consequences to this day. Much as we'd like to, we can't just sweep it under the rug and say that's all over and everything's fine now. When I hear conservative white guys railing against 'Woke-ism' and CRT by promoting how 'color blind virtuous' they are it always sounds insincere to me. It sounds like disingenuously holding up a virtue shield against any complaints about social injustice or proposed responses to them.

The incompetent wing of the GOP is trying to shut down the government and run an 'investigation' on impeaching Biden that will go nowhere. Their goal seems to be to cater to the radical base with the attitude of "If you impeach our guy, we'll impeach your guy!" Some of them have been calling for a Biden impeachment before Biden even took office. It's ridiculous. Their job is to govern, which they are failing at if they can't even keep the government open and functioning.

What's the evidence Biden committed an impeachable offense? I must have missed it.

I think things only have meaning when they are signs, symbols, or referents for something else. So, the word 'tree' has meaning because it points to the concept of a tree. But a tree itself just is what it is, and isn't a referent for anything, so it doesn't have meaning. And that's why I say human life doesn't have meaning. It isn't a referent for something else. I don't mean that in a depressing way, it's simply a philosophical distinction between things that have meaning and things that don't. Another way to use the term meaning would be in regards to value. In that sense, I think human life has value, but only because we value it. Things only have value because they are valued by subjects capable of doing that. Gold has value because we think it is pretty, and because it's rare, and because we find some of its properties to be useful -- but without our valuing it, it's just one element among many in the universe. I don't think things have intrinsic value because I don't think that concept is a coherent one.

Yes, that's exactly what he's been doing for decades. And he has the gall to say he's legally covered by what he calls the "worthless clause" which essentially says his property valuations can't trusted! The great criminal clown show must go on!

A "worthless clause." Now I've heard everything. What an appropriate name, though, for any kind of business dealings with a guy like Trump! "You can't hold me responsible because there is a clause here that says don't trust what I say." Got it!!!

Something I'll add is that a list of bullet points isn't the same thing as a list of arguments with premises leading to conclusions. A mere list of points or observations is much more easily dismissed than actual arguments would be. An intelligent theist isn't likely to feel challenged by that list of points and will likely give pat answers similar to what I gave.

Suffering might be the result of being able to form expectations that don't align with reality, which is unavoidable for beings who are not omniscient, as well as the result of creatures with nervous systems that live in a world governed by natural laws.

Just for fun, even though I'm an atheist, I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue against these ten points, mainly from the point of view of a Christian, which is the only world religion I'm educated on:

1. consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones

This is an informal, inductive fallacy known as a faulty generalization. We can't conclude that because certain explanations from theists have proven to have been wrong in the past that they are therefore wrong in all of their explanations. For example, if we have natural explanations for lightning and rain now, that doesn't mean the theist's explanations that God created the universe and life are incorrect.

2. inconsistency of world religions

This is another informal inductive fallacy of faulty generalization. All the inconsistency of religions proves is that they can't all be true, not that they all are false. From the point of view of the Christian, only one religion needs to be true for their beliefs to be valid. And in fact, this is exactly what they teach -- that Christianity is the one, true religion.

3. weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics

This is a subjective assessment and an opinion only. Many theists find religious arguments, explanations and apologetics to be quite compelling.

4. increasing diminishment of god

No theist is likely to grant that God has diminished in any way. Going back to point 1, less supernatural explanations may be offered to explain things as our understanding of the world improves and we replace them with natural explanations, but that that doesn't mean God is rendered smaller or lesser in any way that is relevant to a Christian's beliefs, i.e. that what is really important is the personal relationship between man and God, salvation and the hope of an afterlife.

5. fact that religion runs in families

Another informal inductive fallacy since this doesn't prove the religion is false. If someone believes something to be true, of course they are going to pass it down through their family.

6. physical causes of everything we think of as the soul

A theist may concede that there are mysteries on this topic that neither side can currently explain. For the theist, there is the problem of how the immaterial soul interacts with the material body. For the naturalist, there is the hard problem of consciousness. Neither of them, however, will concede that their lack of a current explanation disproves their own position.

7. complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing

The theist can argue that supernatural phenomena are qualitatively different than natural phenomena and therefore we can't hold testing of such to the same standards or expect the same results. For example, if natural phenomena are regulated by natural laws, we can expect to be able replicate our tests with the same or similar results. But if supernatural phenomena are agency driven by a supernatural being acting of its own free will (God, an angel, a demon, etc.), then we have no reason to expect them to display the same regularity as phenomena governed by natural laws.

8. slipperiness of religious and spiritual beliefs

This is a subjective opinion. Many theists will assert they are remarkably consistent about their religious and spiritual beliefs, and may point out of the list of the attributes of God has stayed consistent for hundreds or even thousands of years (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, eternality, etc.). In any case, a theist who alters or modifies his beliefs in response to objections or recognition of inconsistencies doesn't prove all of his beliefs are incorrect. As an example, a theist may give up a particular doctrine yet still retain his core religious beliefs about God.

9. failure of religion to improve or clarify over time

Theists could argue that this doesn't disprove a religion, as a religion doesn't need to improve or clarify in order to be true. One could even argue that a religion that is static could be a good thing if it means its teachings are true and unchanging. Alternately, theists may argue that theology is the study of God and has improved and clarified humanity's understanding of God over time, and that in some cases additional revelations have improved or clarified religion (e. g. the New Testament being about new revelations from God, the doctrine of the Trinity being discovered or revealed, etc.).

10. complete lack of solid evidence for god's existence

Again, this is a subjective opinion, since many theists will point out what they consider to be solid evidence which may be citations of medical miracles of naturally unexplained healing, group miracles like the Miracle of Fatima, out of body experiences, near death experiences, etc. Additionally, they may point to arguments like the Cosmological, Fine-Tuning, and others related to physical reality as being solid evidence for God's existence. If the theist is using facts about physical reality to prove God's existence, what is more solid than that?

I've often heard people claim that Trump won the 2020 election or that the election was rigged against him, but I never hear any of the details that convince people why they believe these things. If Trump won, how many votes did he win by? How many electoral votes did Trump get and how many did Biden get? If you can't answer these questions, how can you claim Trump won? If the election was rigged, who rigged it and how did they do it? When we ask for evidence, all we ever seem to get are hand waving generalities and anecdotes: "The evidence is everywhere" or "people have written books about it" or "there is lots of video footage of people stuffing ballot boxes." But if we're talking about nationwide election fraud we're talking about an immense conspiracy with many, many participants. Who are they? What are their names? Who is pulling the strings, and who planned it? When specific people are named, like Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, it turns out not to be true. When Raffensperger didn't go along with him, Trump accused him of being in on the scam: "Because of what you've done to the president..." When Fox News accused Dominion Voting Systems of widespread elector fraud, they had to settle out of court for $787 million. If Fox was telling the truth, they wouldn't have given Dominion one red cent. As with most conspiracy theories, it turns out to be much safer, legally speaking, to not name names but to keep the accusations vague like "the deep state" and "the liberal elite" and so on.

We all know what happened at this point, but a few people are still in denial. Trump had a pattern of behavior dating back to the 2016 Iowa primary and general election of claiming the only way he could lose is if it there was election fraud. So, it was no surprise that he did it again in 2020. This wasn't a belief based on evidence, it was a strategy. And of course he was going to fire any of his lawyers and underlings who didn't go along with the strategy. Fortunately for our country, there were those willing to not go along with his strategy to overturn the election. Unfortunately for Trump, the consequences are catching up with him.

But aren't we talking about lawyers Trump hired long before he was indicted for anything? The context is that Trump was hiring lawyers to advise him and help him challenge the election results in the courts. At that point, they weren't on the defense -- they were on the offense, and making the claim that the election was rigged and stolen and so they had the burden of proof.

What does a slogan like "Trump or Death" even mean? A slogan like "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" is pretty straightforward and means without certain freedom and rights I don't regard life as living, and I'd be willing to die to get those things. But "Trump or Death"? Does that mean if Trump isn't re-elected in 2024, you as the Trump supporter will kill yourself since your alternate reality bubble has finally popped and you can't take it anymore? This sort of supporter seems to be ruling out prematurely the possibilities that Trump doesn't become the Republican nominee or simply loses in a fair 2024 election...

I will add that this sort of mentality is what makes this such a difficult situation to resolve peacefully through reasonable discussion. If one side is basically saying "if we don't get our way, there's going to be violence" then there is no reasoning with them. They're signaling to you that there is no scenario where they lose that they're willing to accept because they've already defined their loss as evidence it wasn't fair and honest. "The only way we can lose this election is if the election is rigged."

Some of the rhetoric I see related to Trump is disturbing. I saw a banner unfurled at a Yankees game that said "Trump or Death" with the dates 1776 and 2024 on them. I saw a recent video clip with Mike Huckabee saying if Trump wasn't re-elected in 2024 that he thought the next election would be settled by bullets and not ballots. And I saw a Trump supporter at an event interviewed and saying that she thought 2024 would be the last election we'd ever have, or maybe we wouldn't even make it to the 2024 election. The buzz on the Right seems to be implying a civil war "if we don't get our own way." I take this very seriously, because that was the buzz in the South when things didn't seem to be going their way, politically, without the balance staying in place between slave states and free states. It was a precarious peace built upon that balance. For a long time there was buzz about possible war before it finally occurred. And then it did.

Go ahead and investigate the Bidens. Let the truth come out, I say! If anything is being hidden or lied about, reveal it to the world. Just make sure you have actual evidence... As a liberal and a Democrat, I don't have any 'loyalty' to Joe Biden in the weird sense of wanting to dismiss all accusations as politically motivated and without justification.

I feel like I'm watching a lackluster Kevin McCarthy with his arm twisted behind his back by the Freedom Caucus unenthusiastically going through the motions of something he doesn't think will go anywhere.

Does anyone have to respond to subpoenas issued by Jim Jordan?

If not responding to a subpoena issued by Congress is a crime punishable with imprisonment (which seems to be the case for Peter Navarro), does that mean Jim Jordan will be going to prison any time soon?

I don't get it. I only take a peek at this thread once in a very long time, but you guys are still responding to NOS4A2 after hundreds of pages. I can understand why he posts, but I don't know why you don't just ignore him. You won't change his mind. He won't change yours. — T Clark

I think it's important in a democratic environment to keep the discussion going, to hear out the other side, and respond to them. It seems to me that when people start shooting each other rather than talking is when they have have simply given up discussion and now define the other side as evil. I don't think Trump supporters are evil, but I do think they are wrong to continue to support him. I have to try to be intellectually honest and be open to the possibility that I am wrong, as well. I think this whole discussion about whether Trump committed crimes or was simply exercising his rights of free speech and legally contesting an election he disagreed with is a very important debate. It's going on across the country and indeed the world. If people are going to defend Trump I want to hear what the reasoning is.

Why did Trump need to pressure Raffensperger find fraudulent votes if he already had evidence that there were fraudulent votes? Why not just present the evidence that he already had? Well, the best explanation is that Trump didn't have the evidence, but wanted state officials to help 'find' it. And when Raffensperger didn't go along with this, Trump accused him of being in on the scam: "Because of what you've done to the president..." So, if you don't go along with Trump's claims of fraud, you are immediately the enemy and one of the ones responsible for the fraud? That's a thinly veiled threat. The whole thing is absurd, and let's remember this isn't just about Georgia. Were the state officials in every swing state part of the same conspiracy to get fraudulent votes for Biden? If so, why did so many Republicans do well in the 2020 election, other than Trump? Why didn't the election-riggers have enough Democrats elected so they could take control of the state legislatures? But most importantly, where is the evidence for this widespread election fraud? We never get it. The whole discussion is like an endless game of whack-a-mole.

Not everyone is so enamoured with party as you guys. Trump especially. He’s been thrown under the bus by republicans and Trump supporters at every single turn. — NOS4A2

The only reason we still have our constitutional republic is because of Republicans and former Trump supporters who stood up to him when he pressured them to overturn the election results. They're patriots and heroes.

You'd have to be an idiot to think Trump was just innocently asking a state official to investigate fraud, after listening to that call and knowing the overall context of everything he was doing related to trying to overturn the election, like the fake electors, pressuring the DoJ to "just say the election was corrupt," and trying to get Mike Pence to do something he didn't have the constitutional authority to do. Listen to the call itself -- Trump doesn't even make sense when he said "I just want to find 11,780 votes... because we won the state." If he won the state, he wouldn't need more votes! No, this wasn't just a polite request to look into voter fraud -- it was a shotgun blast of claims that voter fraud happened and pressure on Raffensperger to accept that and change the outcome, even implying that Raffensperger was committing a crime if he didn't. It was pressure and it was a threat. Trump supporters who defend this are disingenuous. It's like defending a mob boss who says, "You have a real nice family... It would be a shame if something happened to them..." We all know what that means in a certain context, but the supporter would say, "What? He was just showing concern!"

I agree simply because atheism and materialism are not synonymous, even though many people treat these two positions as if they are. As an atheist, I'm not committed to the claim that everything in reality is reducible to the material or physical. I'm open to that possibility, but not committed to it. I'm an atheist because I'm not convinced anything that would be reasonably defined as a god exists. But I've always been agnostic about materialism or physicalism, because, honestly, I just don't know if all abstractions are reducible to purely physical causes and effects. I also think it's a mistake to conflate the abstract with the supernatural. It might be that abstractions have their own sort of existence that is independent of and not reducible to the physical, and yet that doesn't necessarily prove that anything supernatural exists. Abstractions could exist as part of natural reality. Let's take mathematics, for example -- I think a good argument can be made for them having their own abstract reality that isn't reducible to physicality. But that doesn't mean anything spiritual or supernatural exists.

As a side note there can be and have been Christian materialists, and I believe Peter van Inwagen is an example of one.

Trump is no victim. He brought all of this on himself. All of it. He could have refrained from whatever he did to Jean Carroll. He could have refrained from having Stormy Daniels paid hush money with campaign funds. He could have given the classified documents back when he was politely asked for them. He could have conceded the 2020 election and dropped his claims of widespread election fraud when his cases failed in court. "They're weaponizing the Department of Justice!" is something we hear from the Right these days, but that's exactly what Trump tried to do with his own Department of Justice when he pressured them to "just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen." Fortunately, they wouldn't go along with him. His own Attorney General Bill Barr wouldn't go along with the claims of widespread election fraud. Nearly everyone that testified in the January 6th Committee Hearings was a Republican. It's not Democrats who are bringing Trump down, it's the Republicans who have been willing to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Reasonable questions but is it apathy and cynicism from supporters? Or do you think many of them accept the Trump narrative as true believers in a war against a corrupt 'business as usual' political process? If this phenomenon operates similarly to a cult, then it's a highly complex situation. — Tom Storm

I definitely think it is a cult mentality as a form of hero worship where they have accepted the narrative that Trump is the outsider/renegade/avenger standing up against the corrupt forces of establishment power. If you look at a lot of the QAnon stuff, there is this theme of "a storm is coming" with Trump returning to destroy the forces of evil in a sort of political apocalypse. It's all couched in very mythic language with Trump being seen as a savior which ties right in with evangelicals' belief that Trump is appointed by God. The other side of the coin is the apathy, disinterest or sheer mental laziness in not fact-checking anything. If it's anti-Trump they reject it, and if it's pro-Trump or against his enemies, they accept it. I just saw on Facebook a Trump supporter post that meme about Bill Barr being paid by Dominion implying that is why he never found any widespread election fraud... With only a few seconds of research on the internet, one can find that the Dominion Barr was associated with was Dominion Energy, Inc. and had nothing to do with Dominion Voting Systems.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-barr-dominion/fact-check-william-barr-had-ties-to-dominion-energy-inc-not-electronic-voting-machines-company-dominion-voting-systems-idUSL1N2YG1WJ

If I could ask for one thing from Trump supporters, it would be to think more critically. If you want to be critical of the left, that's fine, but be critical about Trump and his supporters as well.

In Trump's January 6th speech compare how much language of fighting there is to how much language there is about peace. By my count, he says fight, fights or fighting 19 times and peacefully once. The reference to peace looks like a disclaimer that can be used later -- and it was. But I think the overall context of that speech needs to be looked at. It's disingenuous to say "He used the word 'peacefully' once in the speech, therefore he's not responsible for any violence that happened." Those people were angry when they got there because of Trump's claims of widespread election fraud. That's why they were there. The theme of the rally was "Stop the Steal." Many in that audience believed their country was being taken away from them, and that they'd lose it if they weren't willing to fight for it. It was in that context that the protesters didn't stay out on the street but broke into the Capitol in search of members of Congress.

Something I've heard from conservatives is that they wish Trump hadn't been indicted and they'd rather his future be decided by the will of the voters. But we already went through that in 2020 and Trump didn't accept the will of the voters. His actions resulting from not accepting the will of the voters are what led to several of his indictments.

Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that applies to the judge and jury in a trial, and it is a good principle to have. But let's not apply it inappropriately. If taken to an extreme, no prosecutor would ever indict anyone because he would presume all are innocent since they haven't been proven to be guilty yet. Why would you indict someone when you presume they are innocent?

Much talk of Trump “proving his innocence” in a system where innocence is assumed, or ought to be, at least if due process and fundamental human rights are any concern. These and other inclinations indicate that the inquisitorial authoritarianism rests solely in the hands of his haters. — NOS4A2

Sure, his innocence is assumed as a matter of legal principle and the burden is on the prosecution to establish his guilt. I agree with you on that. But if he is capable of proving his innocence, why wouldn't he do it? For example, with the classified documents case, if he declassified the documents prior to taking them to Mar-A-Lago, he could tell us when he did that, what the process was that was used, and who was present. Instead we get rambling and contradictory nonsense about how he could declassify documents with his mind, or that he once had the power to declassify as president but no longer does. Plus, we have the obstruction charges with contradictory statements of not having the classified documents, or having them but having a right to keep them, or of already having turned them over. It appears to me that Trump could have avoided all of this by simply turning over the documents when he was initially asked for them. Instead, he dragged his feet and refused to cooperate, had his lawyers lie, and got raided by the FBI and got caught in the lie, and now Trump and his team are all in deep legal trouble. And that's just one indictment.

I suspect that the reason Trump announced his candidacy abnormally early is that he anticipated being indicted. He knew that once he was a candidate he could play the "charges are all political and my opponent wants to put me out of the race" card. The candidacy itself is his defense, and because he can't prove he's innocent, that's all we are going to hear: "It's a witch hunt, they're bad people who hate our country and that's why they're out to get me, they've weaponized the Department of Justice, the deep state is doing this, I'm the only thing between them and you," etc. A lot of Trump supporters are already primed to believe this stuff due to non-stop conservative media preaching how evil liberals are, and a tendency to buy into QAnon-type conspiracy theories. Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence to them because they already believe the narrative that any charges brought against him are coming from evil people who want to destroy America. But in actuality, it is this cult-like reverence of Trump that could destroy America. That's the irony. While waving their flags and believing they are the patriots, they could vote in an authoritarian who does irreparable damage to our constitutional democracy.

Julius Caesar, more than anybody, is responsible for the death of the Roman Republic, and yet he is the most famous and arguably most admired Roman of all time. That never seemed right to me.

4. If human beings need the freedom to make morally good and morally bad decisions, then they must be allowed to exercise their free will without constant divine scrutiny. — gevgala

What's your support for this premise? Why should we think free will is impeded by constant divine scrutiny? Is that like saying being aware the police exist impedes your free will about whether to commit crimes or not? Since most classical monotheists believe God has the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, we'd be under constant divine scrutiny whether we are aware of it or not. So, maybe you should rephrase this premise to be "without the appearance of divine scrutiny." The more I think about it, the appearance of constant divine scrutiny would not impede our freedom to make morally good decisions -- only morally bad decisions. But isn't this a net good result?

Except that this doesn't seem to gauge whether the philosophy being conducted is any good or not, whether it is systematic or not, whether it builds purposefully on established traditions or not, whether it has learned from mistakes or not. Philosophy may come down to 'thinking about thinking' but if it isn't taking any notice of previous work, just how philosophically useful is it? I'm sure there are any number of neophytes out there who imagine that have discovered solipsism and relativism and will likely remain energetically ignorant of any previous discourse from the tradition. — Tom Storm

That's true, it doesn't. I was only responding to the OP question of "is philosophy still relevant?" and pointing out that is a philosophical question, and so we can't really get away from doing philosophy. As a friend of mine once defined it: a philosophy is just a way of looking at the world. And we all have worldviews and we're all capable of making errors and improving our worldviews. So, there is always value in critical thinking. Now, I think when one becomes interested in philosophy one is likely to be drawn to reading the literature and educating oneself on what has come before; and that is when you get into answering whether the philosophy being conducted is "any good or not" as you say. We're standing on the shoulders of giants, or at least we should be, since we can avail ourselves of everything that has come before. And that is why I would say it is still relevant to study philosophy academically.

Has our civilization evolved to the point where philosophy can be dispensed with? At its inception, Philosophy was really an amalgam of all knowledge. However, with the diremption of philosophy and science since Bacon, and the ever-increasing hegemony of science (technology), has philosophy moved from being an "outlier" to a superfluous branch of study? Specific "tangible" areas, such as formal logic, could be assimilated into sciences such as math. While others could become the stuff of history? Does philosophy still contribute? When you are reading it, do you feel you are contributing? — Pantagruel

I've seen this topic come up repeatedly over the past thirty years or so, since I've developed an interest in reading philosophy for pleasure (early 90's) and then taking philosophy courses (late 90's). The gist usually seems to be along these lines:

"While philosophy may have given birth to useful and valuable disciplines, it is now sort of like the old man on the porch, toothless and talking a lot, but no longer contributing in a practical way."

"Since the 'important' parts of what was once known as natural philosophy have spun off to become disciplines in their own rights, like physics, biology, astronomy, etc. all philosophy is left with is navel-gazing."

"Philosophy is now just a relic of history."

These are the sentiments I see expressed over and over again. But what I would point out is that we can never really get away from doing philosophy. This discussion topic and the OP is itself, doing philosophy. By asking if philosophy is still relevant, we are engaging in philosophy. Philosophy means "the love of wisdom" and at its core is about thinking deeply and asking questions and following the argument where it leads, and that is always going to be relevant to the human experience.

What this amounts to is an exception being made for the White House using a very specific interpretation of of the statute to freely engage in nepotism while no other part of the federal government may do so. That doesn't stop it from being nepotism, however. Do you think Jared Kushner would have gotten that $2 billion from the Saudis for his brand new investment firm if he hadn't been employed by the White House?

Signed. Just think, Trump wouldn't be going through all of this if he had just conceded the election and gave back classified documents when asked nicely. Trump brought all of this on himself. Zero sympathy, here. Also, he could have refrained from sexually assaulting women and paying hush money to porn stars using campaign funds. Trump supporters: this is your golden calf, your false deity...

The wording suggests that they can be employed as volunteers just not as paid employees. If section b meant they can't be employed under any circumstances then there would be no need for section c. — Michael

No, it means there are different ways of violating the statute: (1) by employing a relative, and (2) by paying a relative you employed. Nowhere in the statute does it say that you may employ a relative as long as you don't pay them. It would go against the point of having such a statute if it deliberately included a loophole that favored families wealthy enough to be employed without drawing a salary. You may not be paying them a salary directly, but you are giving them power, and that can be exchanged for or leveraged into money.

Actually, the statute is very specific about this -- bold added by me for emphasis: "(c) An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced."

That statute only says that they can't be paid for the work, and I believe they weren't — Michael

Section b says they can't be appointed or employed. Section c says they can't be paid.

Kushner’s investment firm got that 2 billion from the Saudis in 2021, after stepping away from politics and after Trump left office. I guess you got the dates wrong. Such a minor but illuminating detail. — NOS4A2

Kushner created his investment firm the day after Trump left the White House in January 2021 and the Saudi government gave it the $2 billion six months later. The nepotism I was referring to happened in the 2016-2020 time frame when President Trump hired Jared and Ivanka in defiance of the anti-nepotism statute 5 U.S. Code § 3110.

It's not Russophobia. I like Russians. I greatly admire the likes of Glazunov, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Glière, Doesteyevksi, Tolstoy and many others. A great people of many great artists. I don't fear Russians, I feel bad for them, because they are under the boot of a terrible man. Putin came to power in a dirty deal with Yeltsin. Putin's FSB planted bombs in Russian apartment buildings and blamed it on Chechen "terrorists." The fear he caused cemented his hold on the country, and all of the elections in Russia since then have been shams. This is relevant because Russia is now an authoritarian regime, and we all know it. It's exactly the sort of government we in the USA could end up with if we aren't careful, and let Trump win in 2024.