But Her Emails: Ivanka Trump Also Used A Private Email Account For Official Government Business
from the SAD! dept
As we near the midpoint of Trump’s presidential term, White House renovations continue, including the erection of a glass-walled enclosure for stone-throwing.
Ivanka Trump sent hundreds of emails last year to White House aides, Cabinet officials and her assistants using a personal account, many of them in violation of federal records rules, according to people familiar with a White House examination of her correspondence.
White House ethics officials learned of Trump’s repeated use of personal email when reviewing emails gathered last fall by five Cabinet agencies to respond to a public records lawsuit. That review revealed that throughout much of 2017, she often discussed or relayed official White House business using a private email account with a domain that she shares with her husband, Jared Kushner.
According to White House counsel, this was all a misunderstanding. Apparently, Ivanka Trump wasn’t aware of the rules governing the discussion of official government business on private channels. This would only be excusable if her father hadn’tspent a great deal of time calling for Hillary Clinton to be locked up for the same behavior.
Given the (still!) ongoing excoriation of Clinton by Donald Trump, you’d think his administration would have tried to lead by example and make sure everyone was on official channels from day one. Instead, his admin team did the same thing Clinton did, minus the setup of a private server.
And there are a few differences between Ivanka Trump’s personal email use and Clinton’s. Some commenters will make this part of the post redundant as they seek to find something hypocritical in Techdirt’s coverage of this story or simply demand it be known Ivanka’s actions were far more acceptable than Clinton’s. Nevertheless, here we go:
It appears no classified information made its way into her personal email account. She also did not set up her own server to handle all official communications. She is also now apparently using her official White House email account after being informed of the rules — a corrective effort Hillary Clinton never made.
Since I’m sure this short post pointing out the hypocrisy of the Trump Administration will be viewed as biased, here’s Techdirt’s history on government officials and private email accounts:
Techdirt criticizes Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server
Techdirt criticizes James Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation
Techdirt criticizes Jame Comey’s reopening of the Clinton email investigation
Techdirt criticizes Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s use of a private email account
Techdirt criticizes New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s use of a private email account
Techdirt criticizes former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s use of a private email account
Techdirt criticizes VP Mike Pence’s use of a private email account
If a government official has used private email accounts for official business, Techdirt has criticized them. Ivanka Trump doesn’t get a pass and neither does anyone on the other side of the gaping political divide. She may not have known the specifics governing official communications but the Trump Administration has no one to blame but itself for the black eye it’s now sporting.
HER EMAILS was a major plank in Trump’s election platform. His administration team could have prevented this but was too busy keeping their own communications off the record to straighten out Ivanka Trump.
Filed Under: email, hillary clinton, ivanka trump
Comments on “But Her Emails: Ivanka Trump Also Used A Private Email Account For Official Government Business”
Lock them both up. It would be a good start, if nothing else…
Re: Re:
Lock everybody up and start over.
Who else?
Wonder if any other family members used the family server?
Re: Who else?
its been extremely well documented over hte last year+ that kushner used that same domain.
Re: Re: Who else?
yah, and who else?
Re: Who else?
What “family server”? All the reporting I’ve seen has been that she used a Microsoft-provided, Microsoft-hosted personal E-mail account – and that, as the article points out, she specificially did not set up her own server. Is there some reporting on this that I’ve missed which would indicate otherwise?
My Irony-O-Meter just melted to the Earth’s core.
Yes, lock them up!
I deal in information, and my employment rules are crystal clear. I don’t handle state secrets, but, if I were to do a fraction of what Ivanka Trump and Hillary Clinton have done, I would be unemployed. We have these laws in place for a reason, though I’m sure that Trump and Clinton are and will be free for the same reason: prosecuting them could trigger a full-blown audit to lead to others going to jail. My belief is that the Republicans made just enough noise for political theater in 2016 while not raising the bar enough for them to get checked. I have no doubt the same will happen with Trump and the Democrats.
Re: Yes, lock them up!
Did Ivanka use this server for state secrets? That’s not been reported, so I think critics are making things up to draw invalid comparisons to Hillary’s actions.
Re: Re: Yes, lock them up!
Did Ivanka use this server for state secrets?
That’s why we need to investigate, investigate more, make her answer questions for 11 hours straight, then investigate again.
While we’re doing that, I’d like her to hear on a regular basis everyone chanting "lock her up."
Just for consistency’s sake.
Re: Re: Re: Yes, lock them up!
HAHAHAHA. Is she sec state? Is she deleting emails and then scrubbing the systems to hide her malfeasance?
This false equivalency is humorous, at best.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, lock them up!
Is she sec state?
No, she’s Senior Advisor the the President. Is that somehow less important than Secretary of State?
Is she deleting emails and then scrubbing the systems to hide her malfeasance?
That’s what the investigations will find out.
This false equivalency is humorous, at best.
Don’t be upset. You should be used to something a Trump does as being an embarrassment. I just want consistency. And emails are important shit, as you guys have pointed out for the last 3 years.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, lock them up!
No, she’s a senior advisor to the President who holds a security clearance and has access to sensitive information.
Well, we can’t know that until there’s an investigation, can we?
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, lock them up!
The investigation proved that Hillary only deleted personal emails, and that the classified info in her emails wasn’t classified until after the fact. But you don’t care about facts, do you?
Re: Re: Re:3 Yes, lock them up!
Even more damning of the probes was the fact that more than 90% of the information (I forget the exact percentage) that was eventually deemed classified (after the fact) and was found on the server originated from other unclassified domains.
This means that these emails were sent to an unclassified server from unclassified servers…
Re: Re: Re:3 Yes, lock them up!
Perhaps you missed the copies of emails on which classification markings were present. The investigators did not.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, lock them up!
The only difference I can see between these two incidents?
The e-mail sent by the blonde has a stamp on it!
Lock. Her. Up.
And yes, Ivanka, that means YOU.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, lock them up!
“Is she sec state?”
No, but given the nepotism and general incompetence of this administration she probably has at least as much access to files as Clinton did.
“Is she deleting emails and then scrubbing the systems to hide her malfeasance?”
No, the grifters involved at least try to be slightly competent in that regard. She’s handed over control to a 3rd party so that other people can do that for her.
Techdirt criticizes Blue Boy
.. oh wait
for the storm to start.
Re: Techdirt criticizes Blue Boy
Blue boy isn’t worth mention. Please don’t bring him up when he’s not even in this article yet.
Election is over, deal with it.
If people had ever wanted to hold any Trump to the same standard as other politicians, they’d have voted differently. I mean, have you heard the latest Trump statement regarding the Khashoggi murder? Only slightly paraphrased it was “murderer or not, we are not going to pass up immensively profitable business with the Saudi prince”. Can you imagine the shitstorm for non-Trump politicians for a bald-faced statement like that?
The way people are reacting, if newspapers/CIA published proof that it was Trump who suggested to bin Salman that Khashoggi was going to be bad business while alive, they’d be chanting “crooked Hillary”.
Trump and his family are above criticism. And to some degree, I’m inclined to say “thanks, Obama”. Because Obama did a lot to raise the level of presidential privilege and public apathy towards it. “Hope and Change”. What a riot.
Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
I did vote differently, bro. The election being over doesn’t mean the winners get a free pass, regardless of who voted what. If an administration does something stupid, they should be called on it, regardless of the fact that they somehow won the election.
Winning the election does not afford the winning party the right or privilege to be free of criticism. Ever.
Re: Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
The problem with that argument is that, in contrast to Obama, with Trump people voted exactly for what they got. With Obama, they voted for a great inspiring forward-looking president they did not get. With Trump, they voted for an openly corrupt rassistic chauvinist crook, and they got him. As opposed to Obama, the voter has no broken pre-election promises to hold the president accountable for.
Re: Re: Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
“With Trump, they voted for an openly corrupt rassistic chauvinist crook, and they got him.”
Is this the point where it’s mentioned that over 3 million people expressly did not vote for that, but the system discounted their votes and they got him anyway?
I understand the “they got what they voted for” mentality, but it’s hard to accept when a majority did not, even if those were the rules the system was set up to play by. Whichever way you want to swing it, a majority of voters did not get what they voted for.
Re: Re: Re:2 Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
It’s the system any american child knows how it works in grade school.
This wasn’t some hidden fact or some sneaky ‘gotcha’, if you are voting and don’t know how the electoral system works that’s your own fault and there is no one else to blame.
If you want to change the electoral system? Fine, good, I think it should be abolished too. But whining about how she won the popular vote and still lost should be met with “Well yea, because the popular vote doesn’t matter, did you even pay attention in school?”
Re: Re: Re:3 Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
Because there’s always someone who doesn’t read the actual words being typed whenever the subject is brought up:
I’m not saying that he didn’t win, nor that he shouldn’t under the system in place. I’m saying that at least 3 million people did not get what they voted for. That you have a system that can outright ignore the wishes of a majority because too many of them were voting in particular states is a different matter.
Did he win? Yes. Did a majority of Americans vote for an obviously compromised con man and thus deserve everything that’s happening to them as a result? No.
I’m not American and thus have no direct stake in this. It’s just that I’m opposed to people being told they deserved something because they asked for it, when most of them clearly didn’t.
“if you are voting and don’t know how the electoral system works that’s your own fault and there is no one else to blame.”
…and if they do know exactly how it works, but couldn’t do anything about it because they lived, studied and/or worked in the “wrong state” and couldn’t individually reform the entire federal voting system in time?
Re: Re: Re:4 Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
Thank you, Paul.
To David and the AC: I expressly did not vote for Trump. I expressly did not want Trump. I therefore will ignore any argument that is "you got what you voted for" because I did not get what I voted for. I got what I did not vote for.
Trump’s campaign promises are things I did not want. Him actually trying to complete those are things I do not want. I will criticize everything Trump does that runs counter to what I did not want, and telling me and everybody else that "you got what you voted for" is an argument designed to discourage people from trying or doing or thinking.
Let’s break this down further. If you tell someone "you got what you voted for" in response to them criticizing the administration for something it has done, you are telling them to sit down and shut up. You are attempting to silence their voice. That makes you, in my book, an asshole.
Second, if someone is criticizing the administration, there is one of two histories to that person: A) They didn’t vote for this administration, in which case "you got what you voted for" is false, because they didn’t vote for this administration.
B) They did vote for this administration, and are in some fashion changing their minds, or were misled before they voted, or something. In which case, while "You got what you voted for" is accurate, but people are allowed to change their minds. And if someone makes a mistake, they should still be allowed to speak out.
"You got what you voted for" is only useful if you actually know the person voted for this hogwash, and you are using it to assist them in realizing they need to do what they can (even if that’s just vote differently in 2020) to correct what they are coming to realize is an error.
So, these posts? You’re saying nothing useful. You’re just telling people to sit down and shut up based on a false assumption that this is what everybody wanted.
Re: Re: Re:5 Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
“Second, if someone is criticizing the administration, there is one of two histories to that person”
That’s a false dichotomy. Other possibilities include:
– They weren’t old enough to vote at the time of the last election, or were unable to vote for some other reason
– They were disenfranchised in some way (i.e. could vote, wanted to but were stopped from doing so)
– They chose not to vote, but regret that decision
– They chose not to vote, but understand their vote would not have made a difference anyway (e.g. voting where those 3+ million people who were ignored were also voting)
Those who chose not to vote do deserve some criticism if they don’t like the result, but as with anything politics related if you think you can break it down into 2 easy choices, you’re missing a lot of things.
You’re correct in that only unapologetic, unrepentant Trump voters deserve the “you got what you wanted” . Whichever way you look at it, that group would be a minority of Americans.
Re: Re: Re:6 Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
I’m not entirely sure it’s a false dichotomy. While your provided examples are more detailed, they still all fall under “they did not vote for this administration.” Of course, that’s a bit of a technicality – it is useful to point all the various reasons that someone might not have voted at all, besides voting for someone other than Trump, so thank you for expanding on it.
For those that chose not to vote and are now complaining – I agree with you. They should have voted. But their complaints are not invalid, either – and anyone telling them to sit down and shut up because they didn’t vote is doing nobody any favors. Instead, we should say “you didn’t vote, this is what happens – so in 2020, you’ll be participating, right?”
For those not Paul, to expand on things a bit more: I have a friend who is here on a Green Card. He unfortunately is not able to vote, since he’s not a citizen. Anyone telling him to shut up and stop complaining can put a sock in it, too – he may not be a citizen, but he lives and works in this country. He may not be able to vote, but he’s just as entitled to voicing his thoughts as anyone else. “You got what you voted for” doesn’t apply to him, and those who use it in a general sense are jerkasses in my book.
Re: Re: Re:3
Would you bet your life that grade schoolers know this stuff? There are two high school students in my living room who’ve been educated within the public school system, and I can bet you they don’t understand the electoral college.
And I bet this forum would argue vehemently on why we have it and whether it is fair or necessary.
More importantly, the EC has served those in power, and so we haven’t been able to change it. Nor have we been able to change voting systems to majority counts (which would do a bunch to break up Texas and California), nor have we been able to change FPTP or add in campaign financing reform.
US democracy is not fractured, it’s shattered and the average American believes it mostly works or is at worst a little broken. No. It’s failing the public, which is one of the reasons why corporate lobbying is one of the best returns on investment as much as $22 to the dollar spent. The US spends $100 billion a year on unconditional corporate subsidies. Just free money to companies.
The system is borked, and no, grade schoolers don’t know that. And no, we can’t change it within the system, except maybe over centuries, by which time the US will be bankrupt and the human species will have polluted ourselves to death.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Why not? I came out of (public) high school with a solid understanding of it, and it wasn’t all that long ago. (I don’t have kids of my own yet, for example.)
Please look up the concept of Chesterton’s Fence before saying such things.
These, I’ll grant, are actual legitimate problems, but what do they have to do with the Electoral College? (Hint: nada.)
o_0 Do you own stock in a tinfoil company or something? Wow…
Re: Re: Re:5 Chesterton's Fence
Mason Wheeler I assume by referring to Chesterton’s Fence you meant to imply that our winner-take-all system of counting votes by district serves some other useful purpose than simplifying the math for a pre-computer era, obfuscating errors and facilitating gerrymandering.
It serves those three functions, and I still think it’s a fence that should be cleared.
Feel free to attempt to sway me otherwise, if you think our district system serves and additional function we cannot live without. If you really think I’m ignorant, proceed to inform me.
Otherwise, I’ll just assume you like the current system because it helps to elect the party to which you hold (irrational) loyalty.
Re: Re: Re:6 Chesterton's Fence
Re: Re: Re:7 "I meant to imply nothing at all"
Then I can safely assume you were saying nothing at all.
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
"Build the wall" and "lock her up" are two off the top of my head. And remember how he was going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something "so much better"?
I think you’ll also note, if you go into any stores about now, that they still have signage saying "happy holidays" and "season’s greetings"; he has not forced anybody to say "Merry Christmas".
He hasn’t brought coal jobs back, and his tariffs have not resulted in the promised economic prosperity to the American steel sector; indeed, he’s had to introduce subsidies to offset the losses his policies have caused to American farmers.
Those are, again, a few examples off the top of my head. For a more thorough analysis, check PolitiFact’s Trump Campaign Promise Scorecard.
Re: Election is over, deal with it.
Like, say, for Democrats to take control of the House?
Re: Election is over, deal with it.
Really? When the alternative was Hillary Clinton, of all people?
Literally the only good reason to vote for either one of them was to keep the other one out of the White House. I know the term "the lesser of two evils" has been overused in politics to the point of cliche, but in this particular case that’s exactly what the 2016 election was about, and as bad as it was, I do honestly believe we ended up with the (slightly!) lesser evil this time.
Re: Re: Election is over, deal with it.
I personally disagree, but I also voted third party, as neither candidate was good for my gut.
In any event, that’s water under the bridge – can’t go back and change the outcome of 2016.
On the flip side, no reason to let Trump and his people do things without being called on them. Terrible people doing terrible things should be called out, regardless of whether we can stop it.
And yes. I’d apply the same rubric to Clinton. Or even a third party candidate, if they’d won by some miracle.
Re: Re: Election is over, deal with it.
Now that he’s president he has a lot more blood on his hands than Hillary.
SOP...
Hypocrisy has been this administrations default setting for far too long now…
Official of what?
The thing I though about when I read this the other day was that the First Lady is not a government official. The position might have some political influence, but that position is not mentioned in the Constitution, or any law that I am aware of. The First Lady might be able to order White House staff around (that’s domestic staff), but telling any other government employee what to do could only be contrued as a message from her husband, one that I would want to verify from the source.
There was also a comment in that other article about Hillary’s use of private email while she was Secretary of State. Well, the Secretary of State is in fact a government official, and has different rules than an unelected and/or unappointed person.
So far as firing Ivanka, well I think they still call that divorce.
Re: Official of what?
Ivanka is not his wife, no matter what Trump wants. Ivanka is his daughter. Since you are unclear on that, you might want to start researching this administration before you go commenting.
Ivanka is a senior adviser in the white house, an actual employee of the government. Her emails discuss sensitive information and bonafide government business. The report makes that clear.
Please do research before commenting.
Re: Re: Official of what?
I’d trade that for people doing research before voting.
Re: Re: Official of what?
Whoops! I guess that tells you how much I care about the milieu that is the Trump family.
Re: Re: Re: Official of what?
“Re: Re: Official of what?
Whoops!”
Pretty bold stuff there. Glad you don’t work for me…
Re: Official of what?
Um…Ivanka isn’t the first lady. She is the daughter of the Trump and holds some dubious but nonetheless officious job at the White House….so she is in fact bound by these laws and thus the hullabaloo…
Re: Re: Official of what?
There’s not necessarily a substantial difference, even if the First Lady is legally an unpaid “housewife.” and it’s not like Ivanka or any of the Trump kids needs a salaried job to pay the bills.
Upon becoming First Lady, Hillary Clinton was (or pretended to be) her husband’s chief policy wonk, who went to work crafting the failed ClintonCare socialized medicine plan. She was also reportedly instrumental in convincing her husband to carpet-bomb the tiny country of Serbia because that country’s president was a nationalist who said unkind things about Muslims (particularly those who took up arms against the government). And it was never hard to imagine that if Hillary got elected president, the First Gentleman would likely have become the most powerful presidential spouse in history.
Re: Official of what?
…Ivanka is Donald Trump’s daughter, AAC.
Re: Re: Official of what?
…tab had been open awhile; missed that that had already been addressed.
What classified information was conveyed from/to the Kushners? The conveyance of classified information is what was so problematic with what HRC did.
Re: Re:
I mean, read the article you comment on? But since you had to ask:
Depends on who you talk to. One of the notes made by the DOJ was that the information was not classified when she received it, and classified information was supposed to be sent elsewhere. Its the one thing I didn’t have a problem with.
As well, for many who are upset about this, the violations of the PRA are an issue in and of themselves. It might be what made it problematic for you, but its not what made it problematic for me. And I don’t think I remember Donald Trump in the middle of those lock her up chants reminding his base about how it was perfectly fine to violate the PRA as long as you don’t share information that might be classified.
Ivanka Trump e-mail
Ivanka Trump is not a government official and as such should have no official government position.
If she does hot have a government position she should not be able to conduct government business.
If these propositions are true and they should be then it is impossible for her to send official government level e-mail.
Re: Ivanka Trump e-mail
I stand corrected above. I though that Ivanka was his wife not his daughter.
Re: Re: Ivanka Trump e-mail
An easy mistake to make since our president commented more on the hotness of his daughter than his wife in recent years.
Re: Re: Ivanka Trump e-mail
(ex)wife -K, daughter +K
Re: Ivanka Trump e-mail
Wow, really?
Ivanka Trump is employed by the Trump White House. She IS an employee/official no matter how ludacris and dubious that might be…
You really didn’t know that?!?
I could be wrong, but I can’t recall TheDonald ever making a specific promise that no one in his administration would ever use a private email server, unlike the way that Obama promised (many times over) that no one in his administration would be a former lobbyist. Yes, Trump is a huge hypocrite (among other things), but he hasn’t broken anywhere near as many promises as Obama broke … in large part because Trump’s promises were comparatively few, and mostly involving things out of any president’s hands (as in “make America great / make Mexico pay”)
On the other hand, we’ve seen how badly the Federal government’s official email handling has been, with massive black holes throughout both the Bush and Obama eras, such as those involving former IRS Commissioner (and 5th Amendment pleading) Lois Lerner, who the D.O.J. under Jeff Sessions decided not to prosecute, but now that he’s gone, maybe Lois Lerner will become a target.
Re: Re:
It’s a bit one-sided to blame just Obama for the Trumps’ transgressions. Can’t you blame Hillary too? That would be so much more balanced.
Re: Re:
Who had “but Obama” on their Bingo card?
Re: Re: Re:
At this point it’s the free space.
Re: Re: Re:
Obama could have easily prevented Ivanka Trump’s email shenanigans, as well as Hillary’s, had he pushed for tough new laws against such email outsourcing, particularly in his first two years, when the Bush email disaster was still fresh on everyone’s mind, during the time when the Democrats controlled the Senate, House, and presidency.
Donald T had a similar missed opportunity.
Re: Re: Re: Donald T had a similar missed opportunity.
If they are agreed on what they want to do, why would it matter that they are from different political parties?
Re: Re:
He doesn’t break promises he just lies straight up. Cuts out the middleman and passes the savings on to you.
Re: Re:
It’s no surprise that suddenly you trumpists have no qualms with hipocrisy.
Re: Re: Re:
“Suddenly”? Which rock have you been hiding under since before the primaries?
Re: Re:
I could be wrong, but I can’t recall TheDonald ever making a specific promise that no one in his administration would ever use a private email server
Nope, I never heard him promise that.
And why would he? It’s not like he is/was concerned about private email servers or the ramifications when government officials use them.
What's really sad...
Anyone from administrations BEFORE Hillary Clinton on up could have said, “Hey, if the rank and file employees have to use government accounts/servers for government business, so should I.”
None of the higher ups did. The problem is obviously systematic, regardless of to whom you are currently pointing the blame finger. Be that the political system, technical system, the hoop-jumping system, or the ass kissing system in Washington.
No one in Washington cares. They haven’t for a long time. They have been fighting FOIA since it was passed. Although in Mrs. Trump’s case, it’s just as likely to be idiocy, as anything else.
Who really needs to be criticized is the Transition Team put in place after the election. One of the first things made clear in the early meetings on “So you are about to be in the White House” should have been NO FRACKING PRIVATE EMAIL SERVERS. Especially considering HRC’s misuse of email was one of Trump’s major campaign points.
So far Ivanka’s use doesn’t seem nearly as bad as HRC’s turned out to be but it does need to be looked at to make sure.
Re: Re:
There’s absolutely no way Ivanka was unaware of the controversy surrounding Clinton’s e-mail server. None.
I’d say the odds the transition team told her not to do it and she did it anyway are pretty high. Her father’s not exactly known for following advice or counsel.
Re: Re:
People who write articles about government official’s "private email servers" need to make the very big distinction between the use of email SERVERS THAT THEY CONTROL from the much lesser misdeed of using private SERVERS THAT THEY DO NOT CONTROL.
By comparison, the Bush regime’s email was much wider scandal than Hillary Clinton’s or really the entire Obama staff, with dozens of Bush officials using the Republican National Committee’s private email server. Obama should have made a bigger deal out of that scandal when he campaigned, and like so many Bush-era crimes, prosecuted everyone involved as well as pushed for much tougher penalties against such shenanigans in the future.
Re: Re:
Who really needs to be criticized is the Transition Team put in place after the election.
Of course! How could it be poor, simple-minded Ivanka’s fault?
I’m sure she never heard a damn thing about private email servers and how using them is bad.
Not The Same Thing
Hillary did not just use a private (cloud-based with all emails saved) email account for inter-White House messages. She used a private email server stored in her bathroom to send classified information and then covered it up by wiping the hard drive. If the FOIA emails from Weiner’s laptop are to be believed, she failed to turn over thousands of emails of that should have been turned over.
The practice Ivanka undertook was exactly what Colin Powell and others have described doing with non-sensitive, communications.
If the House Democrats (as reported) really do plan to investigate this next year, they will only serve to draw renewed scrutiny of Hillary’s email server and it’s destruction. So go for it.
Re: Not The Same Thing
Except for the part where she didn’t send classified email. But hey thanks for signing up just to lie about it. Now our host will let you know what lovely parting gifts that you have won.
Re: Not The Same Thing
You’re literally just spreading lies.
Re: Not The Same Thing
Do you assclowns actually believe Trump or anyone else will get her locked up eventually? Really?
Re: Not The Same Thing
If the House Democrats (as reported) really do plan to investigate this next year, they will only serve to draw renewed scrutiny of Hillary’s email server and it’s destruction.
I’m fine with that. We can investigate Ivanka for 2 years, make her sit up straight and answer questions for 11 hours, and then investigate again! And when we’re done investigating, we can say we’re not satisfied and start the process all over again. Let’s make sure we get to the bottom of this!
And if that means renewed scrutiny for Hillary, I say "go for it!" Republicans have been trying to prosecute the Clintons for what’s been north or 25 years, and after all this time – after all of the "lock her up" bullshit that trumptards to this day are still chanting trained chimps, she’s still not locked up.
Either republicans are really, really, really shitty investigators, or the Clintons are just to damn smart for you.
So go ahead. Renew your scrutiny and all, and let’s do some investigating!
Re: Not The Same Thing
What a fucking liar. The info in those emails wasn’t classified until AFTER she send them. Plus, the investigation showed the only emails she deleted were personal.
Her gets a pass, Her also did an end around of the DOJ, as did the DNC when their server got hacked.
The multiple concerns about official business on private servers
There’s two issues here:
One, that information that should be public record (or at least historical record), and emails on non-official servers fail to become that.
Two, data harmful to national security may accessible to spies for being on an inadequately secured server. Most of the concern by the FBI regarding the Clinton server was about this latter point.
The next step is to find out what can be gleaned off Ivanka’s private server that puts the United States under threat.
Re: The multiple concerns about official business on private servers
Does it still count as a “witch hunt” when you are actually living on Blockula and are tired of having all your flowers trumpled?
“If a government official ..”
Is Ivanka Trump a government official?
Re: Re:
Her position is Senior Advisor to the President , an official (unpaid) government position part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.
“It appears no classified information made its way into her personal email account.”
This is not really a difference, it was the same for Hillary. You have to wait a while to see if something is classified retroactively (which of course neither of them have any control over) to see if there is any difference there.
Re: Re:
Same for Hillary? The FBI found the opposite of what you claim.
Re: Re: Re:
Not sure what you mean. According to the FBI nothing was classified at the time Hillary sent them through private email, but some of it was classified retroactively later on. So how can we know if there is a difference in Ivana’s case if it isn’t later on yet. No way to know if something will be retroactively classified at some point.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I was misinformed. They did say that what she sent had been classified at the time. Colour me chastised!
Re: Re: Re: That's actually news to me.
I didn’t know the classified material on Clinton’s email server had been classified after the fact.
That smacks of our state’s overclassification problem, which suggests that all cases of classification that aren’t current operational intel are meant to cover up stuff from the public, rather than from enemy spies.
Re: Re: Re:2 That's actually news to me.
I wasn’t completely correct. Some of it (a small number) was also classified at the time that she sent it as well (which is the part that was news to me).
There is also some minor controversy because apparently even a newspaper article can be considered classified information, and something can be both common knowledge and classified information at the same time 🙂
Oh come on...
Can’t we have a little hope that we’ve passed the half way mark?
Re: Oh come on...
Midpoint of his term? Sure. Midpoint of the negative effects of his administration? Not even close.
Re: Oh come on...
Unlikely. Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama all got a second term despite each of them having clearly demonstrated by that point that they were blatantly unfit for one. Why should Trump be any different?
Re: Re: Oh come on...
It looks like the economic wave (created by Obama but that Trump has been surfing) might be ending, and if so Trump will be in serious trouble. That’s the only thing he has in the plus column for a lot of people.
Re: Re: Re: Oh come on...
The economic wave was mainly created by people several decades ago having lots of kids, who therefore ended up reaching their statistical peak consumer spending age all at once. Who the current President was when this happened has very little to do with it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Oh come on...
While the president’s role in the performance of the economy is often grossly overstated, your suggestion that the recovery following the housing crisis was driven by simple demographics is similarly reductive.
Per Morgan Stanley, peak spending age is 35-54. The people aging into this demographic during the Obama Administration were Gen Xers — who are smaller in number than both the older (Boomer) and younger (Millennial) generation. So right off the bat, your claim of a sudden surge in people in the peak spending demographic is suspect.
Several federal-level policy decisions (TARP under Bush and a Democratic Congress, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act under Obama and a Democratic Congress, interest rate decisions made by Federal Reserve Chairs under both presidents) contributed to the economic recovery — though it’s important to note that economic gains have disproportionately gone to the already-wealthy. Lower- and middle-class people are likelier to be employed now, but they’re not seeing the income growth that previous generations did. (This, too, has long-term ramifications for the economy; now that Millennials are beginning to age into that 35-54 demographic, they’re not going to spend as much as previous generations because they don’t have as much to spend.)
Any way you slice it, it’s ridiculous for Trump to claim credit for the current economy, as the trend lines are the same as they were before he took office. Wherever you place the credit for the economy in 2016 (and whatever role Obama may have had, he certainly wasn’t solely responsible), it doesn’t belong with Trump.
Re: Re: Re:3 Oh come on...
We had that boom during the late 90s and throughout most of the 2000s. But there’s a second wave of the same Boomer generation to it that Morgan Stanley’s site didn’t mention: while the average person’s peak spending age is around 50, for the wealthiest it’s closer to 60. And with so much of the total wealth being concentrated in the hands of the top 1%–the majority of whom are Baby Boomers–the expected result is… well… exactly what we’ve been seeing for the last few years. But now as that peak begins to pass, things are looking a bit rocky ahead.
I never said it did. In fact I said pretty much the exact opposite: that no President deserves the credit because it’s the result of demographic forces that were set into motion decades before any of them even went into politics.
Re: Re: Re:4 Oh come on...
…the boom caused by a larger generation aging out of the peak spending age and a smaller generation aging into it? WTF are you talking about?
No, it isn’t. Because people who have more money don’t spend more money. Poor and middle-class people buy essentials; the top 1% invest their money. Even the most conspicuous spenders only put a fraction of their money into buying goods and services — or they don’t remain in the top 1% for long.
The top 1% drives the performance of the stock market, the housing market, and other investment industries that act as leading indicators. Those all contribute to the economy, but they’re not part of the peak buying phenomenon you’re describing, and they’re not a complete picture.
Yes. And I said that’s just as reductive as saying it’s all the president.
The financial collapse of ’07-’08 was driven by the mortgage crisis. This was driven by deregulation that occurred during the Clinton and Bush Administrations (each with a Republican Congress), and by predatory lending by the banking industry (facilitated by a lack of oversight during the Bush Administration). To suggest that the only factor that drives economic trends is demographics is patently absurd.
The President does not drive the economy singlehandedly. Neither is he inconsequential. The same goes for demographic changes; the same goes for interest rates; the same goes for any single factor that contributes to the economy. Crediting or blaming any single factor for an economic trend is a gross oversimplification of a complex system.
Re: Re: Re: Oh come on...
Unless he winds up being able to blame the coming economic downturn on the Democrats having taken over the House, which – given the sway he has over the views of the part of the country that is inclined to support him – I wouldn’t put beyond the bounds of plausibility.
Re: Oh come on...
Strictly speaking, Trump’s (first?) term began on January 20th, 2017, and ends on (or immediately prior to?) January 20th, 2021 – in both cases, Inauguration Day. That remains true even if he leaves office before the end of that period; that would just lead to someone else filling out the remainder of Trump’s term.
By that standard, the midpoint of his term will be on January 20th, 2019. We still have just under two months to go.
Punishment
Let’s see how it would be handled if a low level employee did something similar and apply the same standard to her Trumpness.
Clinton would likely have faced jail time if she was just a rank and file person who did what she did which, as a retired government employee, really honks me when I see the high and mighty not held to the same standards.
The Trumps have zero excuse as has been pointed out since the kerfuflle they made over Clinton could hardly have gone right on by her dainty little head.
The Trumps as an represent the worst aspects of “me firstism” where the common rules and laws are there for the little people and not for them.
But what can you expect from a man who says he is too busy to visit the troops but has time for yet another golfing vacation this weekend?
I’d swear the man said *he* would be too busy being President to golf when he made endless jibes at Obama.
Re: Punishment
He did. 27 times. https://www.sbnation.com/golf/2017/3/27/15073086/donald-trump-tweets-barack-obama-golf
Re: Re: Punishment
Because if you’re going to be grossly hypocritical in doing(on a regular basis) the very thing you criticized your predecessor for, why half-ass it?
but her emails...
Hillary’s were talking with people like Soros and most likely running guns to terrorists in places like Libya. Ultimately, she probably has far more knowledge into the pre-existing situation behind Benghazi than we’ll ever know.
Libya has slavery again now thanks to you guys and your stupid leadership. For all that Trump does, doubt he’s ever going to do that. The right leader was picked between the two, though our system does rather suck when it comes to picking them.
Oh, and while I agree that Ivanka should not be using private email for government business, it’s on a 3rd party server, so she can’t delete subpoenaed emails like Hillary did without there being a record of it.
Re: but her emails...
The humorous naiveté of the partisan mind will never fail to entertain, although it’s still a little scary that people who think like you can know so little yet believe so much.