Which is an inherently subjective argument, which is my point, as opposed to your saying that Kushner and Ivanka Trump are prima facie unqualified for their roles. Since you now know you can't prove this, you've shifted the goalposts.
>You can't argue that's it's a good idea, or that his decisions have produced any results
No, the onus is on you to prove that Kushner and Ivanka are inherently less qualified for what they are doing than, say, the examples I provided in my previous comment. Since being Robert Kennedy's college roommate and football teammate automatically means advising on national security matters in the Oval Office during the Cuban Missile Crisis, amirite?
I am not saying that O'Donnell was inherently unqualified for his role. On the contrary, for a position like his (identical to Kushner's and Ivanka's, by the way; just the title is different), being trusted by the person you advise is as important a criteria for such a role as any other. JFK trusted O'Donnell to work hard to give him good advice. Period. End of story.
Maybe Kushner will spend eight years over two Trump terms as Trump's Middle East envoy and no progress will be made in terms of Jewish-Arab peace. Such results would be ... about on par with all of his predecessors from seven different administrations over 40 years.
>"Inept" is, I believe, the word you were searching for.
Wrong again. "Inapt" is correct; your comparison of a position with formal, defined qualifications for versus positions without such is, as I said, an inapt one.