Ivanka Trump Used Her Personal Email Account For Government-Related Correspondence

Submitted by: daegog 2 months ago in News & Politics

Need a two-year investigation and some left over 'LOCK HER UP' memes please and thank you.

An excerpt from The Guardian: Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka used a personal email account for government business, a spokesman has confirmed, reportedly sending hundreds of emails from the account.

The revelation in the Washington Post on Monday prompted immediate accusations of hypocrisy. Trump branded his 2016 election rival “Crooked Hillary” Clinton over her use of a private email server and encouraged supporters in chants of “Lock her up!”

The Post report said Ivanka, a White House senior adviser, used a personal account to send hundreds of emails last year to White House aides, cabinet officials and her assistants – many in violation of federal records rules.

White House ethics officials learned of her practice when reviewing emails gathered last autumn by five cabinet agencies to respond to a public records lawsuit, according to the report. They found that Ivanka often discussed or relayed official White House business using a private email account with a domain that she shares with her husband, Jared Kushner, during much of last year.

Her excuse is that she was unaware of some details of the records rules, her associates told the Post.
There are 175 comments:
Male 2,254
Nothingsauce poured over a nothingburger.
Gov't officials ARE allowed to use private devices with a set of provisions: she met ALL the provisions and did absolutely nothing illegal, never mind even wrong!

Hillary broke a whole slew of laws, by her own admission while under oath! And the evidence in her emails is irrefutable on top of that. Then there's the classified ones, some of which she illegally deleted, others which ended up on Anthony Weiner's computer!

To even try to compare the two is a joke, to claim they are 'equal' is pure bullshit.
-1
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko You keep making two contradictory claims: Hillary C. lied under oath about her crimes; and Hillary C. admitted under oath to her crimes. You never make both claims in a single comment. You seem to alternate randomly. How do you keep them separate?

Since I am indulging idle curiosity: I understand that you are a Canadian citizen. How did all this nonsensical U.S. political drama become such a driving force in your life?
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 Why not both? She lied about crimes W&X and admitted to crimes Y&Z. How hard is that to understand? It is not contradictory in the slightest. They refer to her many many separate crimes: some admitted and others lied about, by her, under oath. Pretty goddamn simple.
Keep them separate: the few she admitted to go in the "She admitted" file, and the hundreds she lied about go in the "She lied" file. Again: pretty goddamn simple.

I live next to a 900 pound gorilla: every single thing the USA does affects Canada profoundly. Also: Canadian politics is very boring: extremely so.
Are you claiming no one has a right or reason to care about American politics but y'all? I think not...

Your questions are becoming pedantic, you were doing that on purpose perhaps?
-1
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "hundreds she lied about"
I have searched all of the public records of HC's testimony under oath. I can find no evidence that she either lied about or admitted to any crimes. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.

"Are you claiming no one has a right or reason to care about American politics but y'all?"
Of course not. If I were claiming that, I would have said that, but I didn't say that. What I did was to ask you a question, and you answered it.

"Your questions are becoming pedantic, you were doing that on purpose perhaps?"
Not at all. I would describe my questions, and my answers to questions, as scrupulous and punctilious. You are welcome to disagree.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 Oh, there's only 'a few' actually proven lies under oath, but hundreds of potential lies and deceptions just about the e-mail scandal. Benghazi is another minefield of her lies & deceptions. But it only takes ONE under oath to be perjury, just like her husband is guilty of.
Here's a whopper at 1:40 & following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8FtqzdiYFU

The FBI recovered at least 8 e-mails which were clearly marked as classified when they were sent or received. She had a hundred+ more which were 'born classified' but had their markings (illegally) stripped. Thousands should have been considered classified from the start, but weren't by her or her team. She swore an affidavit she'd taken the training to know which were 'born that way', and to follow lawful procedures like: not sending classified material on a private device and/or on a private server, not ever. Yet several e-mails have her ordering her staff to (illegally) strip markings to do just that.
It doesn't need to be marked it just needs to be classified and it's a crime. You ought to know that, given you claims at expertise.

She also said, under oath, that 92% (or some such made-up number) of her work e-mails were archived. The actual number was 0.00% Not a single e-mail in 4+ years. 
& etc.

Glad you accepted and acknowledged the answer, it's a fairly common question here :p

I note your ignoring facts you dislike is "scrupulous and punctilious" but your asking of questions remains pedantic. 
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko You started with 'hundreds' of lies under oath. After I challenged that, you modified the number to one. I listened to your link. You should listen to it also.
I'm tired of reading your nonsense. I'm tired of trying to make sense of your syntax. It's late, and I'm tired. Good Night.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 Yes, I should have said: hundreds of lies, some while under oath. Sue me, pedant. 
In fact she may have lied 'hundreds of times' while under oath, since she frequently lied repeatedly about the same subject during a chain of questioning, but I'll stick with 'some' referring to the subject matters not the total number of times. I note that you overlook the key fact: it only takes one.
0
Reply
Male 13,505
What happened to I-A-B?  its like no posts came in over 24h
-1
Reply
Male 2,345
monkwarrior "What happened to I-A-B?"
It's gone! Didn't you get the email?
-1
Reply
Male 13,505
-1
Reply
295
This is ridiculous.  More left leaning loon BS.  What I don't see is any mention of using her private email for sending classified docs, like Hillary did.  World of difference.  Plus, Hillary spent her life in government.  She knew better.  This silly bimbo just sent emails to everyday staff.  Not the same situation.
0
Reply
Male 794
I think I will stay away from anything political here from now on, the whole "Left is perfect, Right is God-awful" crap wears thin.
1
Reply
Male 2,345
Shelworth "I think I will stay away from anything political here from now on"

Well, of course you will be missed, and that is not a completely unreasonable attitude, but consider a few points:

You are not required to read everything, and by now you know who will write something likely to make you want to walk away;
If you do read something you consider 'crap', you are not required to respond;
If you decide to respond, and the discussion goes off the rails by your standards, you can tell yourself that you tried, but some people are incorrigible;
If you decide to respond, and the resulting discussion is interesting, the discussion was interesting;
Whatever you do, and whatever comes of it, at the end, you will still be the person you were, with the same mind you brought with you and the same amount of change in your pocket.

I think you have nothing to lose.

0
Reply
Male 190
Shelworth Golly, what swell timing.
-1
Reply
Male 13,432
Shelworth if you want a lord trump circle jerk there are plenty of sites to go to. Head over to breitbart. You can fellate him to your heart's content.
-1
Reply
Male 9,692
Shelworth Coming from you that's rich.  You realize that's what YOU ARE DOING not the other way around.
2
Reply
Male 794
normalfreak2 Please point out something I ever said that didn't apply to both sides.... You only see what you want to see.
-1
Reply
Male 2,254
Shelworth He's really good at that actually, lifetime of practice! Watching him defend Hillary's actual crimes while making false accusations against Trump in the same breath is... it's like a symphony orchestra of hypocrisy! :-)
-1
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "...false accusations against Trump..."

It's really difficult for me to imagine a false accusation against Trump. 
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 So you believe he's "flat broke" then? lolz. 
There's been hundreds of whoppers thrown at Trump, so many they actually overlap...
-1
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "So you believe he's "flat broke" then?"
On the evidence available, the Trump family appears to have more liabilities than assets.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 3 Billion in assets and 140 million in 'debts' is what I came up with when this was posted on IAB. No one actually disproved or discredited my stats, they just repeated their bullshit and attacked me :p Just like almost every other time.
The 'debts' were from various enterprises. This is normal: carrying debt is part of literally every business in existence. It does not indicate imminent bankruptcy or no one would ever loan money to a business! There was zero evidence of "Russian blackmail" or other bullshit, it was just how businesses work.

His asset total may be debateable (of course, it's an estimate after all!) but in no universe can an estimated 3 Billion suddenly become less than 140 million.
So... you believe the whopping lies. No worries, it's you life :p
-1
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "No worries, it's you life :p"

Yes, as you say, it's me life.
0
Reply
Male 2,377
Blah, Blah, blah, she's a trump, so she's lying. trump has no honor.
-1
Reply
Male 794
Classified no, everything else OK. 
-1
Reply
104
Shelworth When you dad goes on and on about something, its pretty hard to be able to say you didn't know.. yeah yeah I don't listen to my folks either..
0
Reply
Male 2,254
bret_watson Hillary broke laws, lots of them, for 4 years AND lied about it under oath too. Do any of those apply here? No? Well then.
0
Reply
Male 9,692
Shelworth NO it's not.  IT's in violation of several rules and laws.  But selective outrage is your thing not mine.
1
Reply
Male 2,254
normalfreak2 I don't think so: Gov't officials are allowed to use private devices in certain circumstances. This was for a short period, FULLY archived and reported on the proper servers.
In other words: the opposite of Hillary.
0
Reply
Male 794
normalfreak2 But it was OK for Hillary to send CLASSIFIED information because....?
0
Reply
Male 2,793
normalfreak2    Ok, so give her the slap on the wrist and call it a day. Unlike the Clinton who was already  a long time government insider she is new to the hole thing and deserves at least the same treatment as Hillary.
0
Reply
Male 190
casaledana The hole thing gets deeper by the day.
0
Reply
Male 9,692
casaledana you are awfully forgiving of Ivanka.  Glad you were consistent with Hillary too.
-4
Reply
Male 2,793
normalfreak2   You are wrong on your theory, I was hard on Hillary and because its obvious that what she did is never going to be properly dealt with than that becomes the standard. 
  Slap her on the wrist and let her go. In reality Hillary did not even get that, she suffered no ill effects other than on her already well worn reputation.

1
Reply
Male 794
normalfreak2 My point was that it doesn't matter to which party you belong, a crime is a crime, so you're saying no one in government can have a personal email account? That's stupid. I'm saying it's WHAT you put on it that decides the crime. Sheeesh!
0
Reply
Male 9,692
Shelworth You have to be trolling or you don't even read.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HER SENDING WHITEHOUSE Documents through PERSONAL E-mail.  Come on man you can't be this obtuse.
3
Reply
Male 794
normalfreak2 Geez, White House documents? Like Troop movements, names of spies, etc?
0
Reply
Male 403
I'm not American but does this fall into Trey Gowdy territory?

Buttery males!
1
Reply
Male 3,052
mikesex He's on it already.
0
Reply
Male 46,097
1
Reply
Male 1,588
When you spit in the air...
0
Reply
Male 46,097
She's pretty, blonde, rich and has the name "Trump".
She CAN get away with anything as we have seen over and over in this
administration. Just ignore the people protesting or complaining and do
whatever you want, works for her daddy, it'll work for her.
2
Reply
Male 10,232
Gerry1of1 And if you're ugly, blonde, rich, corrupt and has the name 'Clinton', you apparently can get away with this in addition to using a personal server, sending classified documents and deleting 30,000 emails that are subject to subpoena.

But, besides that, the cases are identical. 
0
Reply
Male 794
megrendel Thank you.
0
Reply
Female 6,818
megrendel Don't forget the Bleachbit and taking hammers to all their devices... but yeah other than that.
1
Reply
Male 10,075
melcervini "Bleachbit"?
0
Reply
Male 3,052
squrlz4ever A software program to erase hard drives so they can't be recovered.
2
Reply
Male 10,075
scheckydamon Ahhh. Thanks, Schecky.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
squrlz4ever It's "off the shelf" along with the security programs used on her private servers: ie: not that good. 
The FBI recovered a lot of the erased data, some of which was classified and thus illegally erased on top of being illegally erased in the first place (they were all under court order to be handed over, all of them not just the ones she felt like letting the courts have, eh?).
0
Reply
Male 46,097
megrendel  Oh I don't care  about all that. The investigation said Hillary did nothing wrong.  It's more about how Trump pounder her for doing but is silent when his own daughter does the same.

Politics - Show business for ugly people.
1
Reply
Male 10,232
Gerry1of1 The investigation said Hillary did nothing wrong.

Actually, the investigation said Hillary did plenty wrong.  

The investigation found 110 emails that were classified at the time they were sent.

"there is evidence that they [Clinton and her team] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." - Comey.
"any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation" - Comey

They just 'decided' no charges were 'appropriate'.  


1
Reply
Male 46,097
megrendel   Looking for a crime, can't find one but scold you anyway.... same thing really as saying she did nothing wrong.

In politics, "right" or "wrong" depends entirely on what you get away with.
-1
Reply
Male 10,232
Gerry1of1 Hint: Sending classified information via unsecured personal email = crime.  (It violates ISO 15489-1:2001)

The fact that the corrupt FBI decided not to prosecute the corrupt Secretary of State that happened to be a corrupt Clinton does not change the fact that she committed a crime.
1
Reply
Male 2,345
megrendel "...crime.  (It violates ISO 15489-1:2001)"

The ISO standards are not laws. Violating any of them is not a crime.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 Having and/or sending classified (even confidential) materials on personal or unsecured devices is indeed a crime. That guy on the submarine went to jail for it at the same time Hillary was getting off...
Ordering unauthorized persons (her Pilipino maid) to access the secure terminal in her home, remove classified documents, scan them and send them over the unsecured personal server is also a crime. She did this 3-5 times iirc.
Destruction of documents under court subpoena is a crime, if they were classified that's another crime.
There's LOTS more! lolz! literally tons... 

0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko megrendel claimed that violating ISO standards is a crime. It is not.

The story about the filipina maid is interesting. The facts are that a person named Maria is referenced in several emails. No one knows who Maria is or what she may have done for H. Clinton, if anything. The rest is speculation.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 Maria was her maid, it's in various records, how can you claim 'no one knows who she is' when it's pretty obvious? Everyone knows! I'm pretty sure it's in one of Bill/Hillary's books exactly who Maria is.

Also: there's no one with clearance to use that room/equipment in her household with that name. For Hillary to ask 'Maria' to break the law like that is a crime, plain and simple. Maria doesn't even have to carry out the request, it's still a crime. You claim to know about such things...
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "how can you claim 'no one knows who she is' when it's pretty obvious?"

First, I have to admit to a typo. I typed 'Maria', and it should have been 'Marina'.
HC had a maid named Marina. In the sixteen emails in which the words 'Marina' and 'print' can be found, only one includes any info that would identify 'Marina'. That one was Marina Pislakova-Parker. Of the others, several are duplicates, and none of them include instructions to 'Marina' to print any classified material.

The New York Post story in 2016 appears to have been primarily a work of fiction.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 So if a newspaper report disagrees with you? It must therefore be a "work of fiction" and all the evidence it contains is 'part of a vast right-wing conspiracy' eh? how convenient!

Oh: Marina Santos was her Pilipino maid btw, this is a fact. So wtf are you doing claiming Hillary didn't have one?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/report_hillarys_maid_had_access_to_topsecret_documents.html
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "if a newspaper report disagrees with you? It must therefore be a "work of fiction""
Not at all. The only actual evidence is found in 16 emails. In one of them, the Marina referred to is clearly Marina Pislakova-Parker. In the others, it is not clear who she is. Everything else in the New York Post story is speculation. The article you linked in 'American Thinker' (sic) is sourced entirely from the NYP story.

"Oh: Marina Santos was her Pilipino maid btw, this is a fact. So wtf are you doing claiming Hillary didn't have one?"
That is, indeed, a fact. In the comment you are ranting about, I wrote, "HC had a maid named Marina."

If you want to disagree with what I write, you would do well to read it first.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 Marina Pisklakova-Parker (with a K) is a Russian women's rights activist, to claim she's the one being told to retrieve and send those classified e-mails is... actually worse than the maid doing it.
Either the maid did them, or a Russian citizen inside Hillary's home did them. Pick your poison. 
0
Reply
Male 46,097
megrendel   See above comment about "right" "wrong" & "get away with it"
0
Reply
Male 2,254
Gerry1of1 No, there were plenty of crimes in Hillary's case: by her own admission while under oath she broke laws. The evidence is overwhelming, but Comey was just as crooked as she was so... no justice in America any longer.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "no justice in America any longer."
Do you mean in all of America, or just in North America?
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 Did I mention how you've become rather pedantic lately?
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "Did I mention how you've become rather pedantic lately?"
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 I looked it up, it means exactly what I thought it did.
0
Reply
Male 46,097
gohikineko "broke laws" and yet there were no laws they 
could charge her with. ... hmmm

Look, I'm not a Hillary fan. I don't trust her nor like her, but I
don't think she's the demon Fox News & Donald Trump tell you
she is.  And historically, she did a good job working with Bill,
the economy was strong, no external threats, and a surplus
in Social Security .     Give the devil her due
0
Reply
Male 10,232
Gerry1of1 there were no laws they could charge her with

Correction...that they WOULD charge her with.  Would =/= could.

There's plenty they COULD charge her with.  They CHOSE not to do so. 
1
Reply
Male 46,097
megrendel  Well, as I said, the Clintons did more good than bad.

Instead of wasting time hating them, why not take a look at the current occupant of the White House.  Tell me what a great guy he is compared with them.
0
Reply
Male 10,232
Gerry1of1 I didn't vote for him because he's a great guy.  He's not.

I voted for him because he is less corrupt than the Clintons. (And I'd argue the fact that the Clintons did more good than bad.)
0
Reply
Male 46,097
megrendel I'll state for the record they're all thieves and pirates, both parties.  But as a rule, democratic thieves tend to give more to the poor and middle class than republican thieves.  Not always true but it's a good general guide
0
Reply
Male 2,254
Gerry1of1 The FBI (Comey) "declined to send charges" to the AG, they never once said she didn't break any laws. On the contrary, many people went to prison for FAR less than what Hillary did. There's dozens of laws she broke, easily. She admitted under oath to doing things that are clearly illegal, but claimed (under oath) she had amnesia and couldn't remember if she knew they were illegal when she did them. Not joking, her second time claiming amnesia...

For example: A sailor took a few pictures of his submarine engine room, intending to show his girlfriend where he worked. Before he could, they were found and charges were pressed: he went to jail for it!! At the same time as Hillary was being investigated, he was tried and went to jail for a few 'confidential' (lowest level of classified) pictures that no one else even saw.
1
Reply
Male 46,097
gohikineko   Hilary's just a lawyer, how is she supposed
to know what is and is not legal ?
0
Reply
Male 2,254
Gerry1of1 Good point, but actually lawyers know exactly what isn't legal... then do it anyhow ;-)

She also swore an affidavit that's she'd taken and understood the security protocols and vowed to follow them, and of course did not.
0
Reply
Male 46,097
gohikineko   I guess it doesn't bother me because, looking at the
pros and cons of the impact of the Clintons on the US I'd say they
were a good thing in the balance. Record booming economy. 
Forward thinking civil rights policies
Surplus in Social Security.
They tried for socialized healthcare but republicans shot it down.

So I guess I just don't care if he got a blow job and she uses personal email
0
Reply
Male 794
Gerry1of1 If you can look at the investigation against Hillary and not see the shenanigans,  you have indeed partaken in the Koolaid.
0
Reply
Male 46,097
Shelworth   I see the shenanigans, I just can't get
all worked up about it just because Fox news tells me to
0
Reply
Female 6,818
Gerry1of1 We'll differ on that one.  It concerns me greatly (hugely ;) )  that such over the top measures were taken to hide whatever they were trying to hide.  It concerns me more that there's such a blase' attitude about it.
0
Reply
Male 6,329
Hell YES, lock her up! (Lock me up with her)
4
Reply
Male 190
broizfam Cool. You can imagine you are her father and get the whole package.
0
Reply
Male 2,793
broizfam   We can take alternate weeks.
2
Reply
Male 3,052
1
Reply
Female 6,818
scheckydamon Can I have a little bit of peril?
0
Reply
Male 6,329
casaledana Agreed
0
Reply
Male 5,341
broizfam Indeed. She should be properly spanked. Bathe here and bring her to me.
1
Reply
7,050
She's not exactly a member of the government
-5
Reply
Male 46,097
dm2754 She is Special Assistant to the President, an employee of the Federal 
Government and advisor to her Daddy. She has office space in the West Wing. 
She voluntarily is an unpaid federal employee.

So yes, she is a member of the government.
7
Reply
Male 13,432
1
Reply
7,050
Gerry1of1 I didn't think if it that way. I do doubt she has access to any sensitive information.
-4
Reply
Male 46,097
dm2754  She has a top secret clearance. As did her brother until the FBI revoked his clearance.
6
Reply
295
Gerry1of1 That's only one facet you need to access top secret info.  The clearance, I mean.  You need the clearance and have to have a need to know.  I worked in military intelligence.  I had a top secret clearance.  I couldn't stroll into area 51 and play gin with the little dray dudes.  Nor could I access anything.  But then the majority of our classified intel can be found in popular mechanics and popular acience.  Having a clearance just means you can possibly confirm or deny whats out there already.
0
Reply
171
Gerry1of1 is it me or is getting Trumpets to see their hypocrisy and stupidity the single most exhausting thing in life. It's like teaching children to admit fault. 

Deflect, minimize, evade, blame, repeat. 

I actually laughed as you meticulously pointed out his errors. Every sane person on earth is repeatedly having these extended conversations trying to get them to see it and they never do.

I recently had one of these in person with Saudi Arabia. It was almost the same bloody thing.

I think it's a mental illness.
0
Reply
Male 13,432
Gerry1of1 LOL part 2
1
Reply
7,050
Gerry1of1 having top secret clearance doesn't give you access to top-secret information.

Just knowing the president's schedule is considered sensitive information though
-3
Reply
Male 2,345
dm2754 "having top secret clearance doesn't give you access to top-secret information."
That's true and it's complicated. In the sixties, I had a 'Top Secret Crypto' clearance. I had access to information that my Base Commander (with the same clearance) could not see, because I had a 'need to know' and he didn't. I hope it goes without saying that he had access to much more information than I did, because he had a 'need to know', and I didn't.
The point of this is that it's possible that no one else knows what Ivanka has had access to.
The law that makes her action potentially criminal was passed by Congress as a reaction to Hillary's actions. Before that, using personal email for official communications was still discouraged, because all such records, by law had to be preserved and archived.
0
Reply
Male 46,097
dm2754   I guess we can just rely on Donald's discretion then when it comes to talking about sensitive information.

LOL
5
Reply
Male 13,432
Gerry1of1 LOL part 3. This is like watching an NBA player dunk on a toddler.
1
Reply
Male 46,097
holygod   hmmmmm... I don't think I want to know who's
the toddler and who's the NBA player
0
Reply
Male 13,432
Gerry1of1 Ok, let's try this sports analogy:

Watching dm2754 try to debate is like watching a special needs person run the high hurdles blind folded.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
holygod https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HOBTUCv4o0

So personally insulting IAB members is A-OK again? It was OK for Obama of course...
0
Reply
Male 13,432
gohikineko Obama personally insulted an IAB member?
0
Reply
Male 2,345
holygod No. Obama suggested that his personal bowling skills were appropriate for the Special Olympics. After it was pointed out that this was offensive, he apologised. Apologies are rare on IAB, but I think that anyone here who apologises for an insult should be commended.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
holygod No, he insulted 'special needs' persons, just like you used retardation to insult an IAB member. Fawning after your hero still? Or just projection?
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "...just like you used retardation to insult an IAB member."
I missed that one. When did holygod use "retardation" to insult an IAB member?
0
Reply
Male 3,052
semichisam01 Lots. I've been the target of that label more than once.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 "Watching dm2754 try to debate is like watching a special needs person run the high hurdles blind folded."
Emphasis added.

I don't think Obama actually apologized, I think he just brushed it off as not insulting and let the MSM cover him for it. It really was a triviality, but coming from "The Lightbringer" who would lower the oceans and heal the Earth? It was not acceptable. Imagine if Trump said such a thing? Wall-to-wall outrage for weeks!
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "I don't think Obama actually apologized..."

Tim Shriver, the chairman of the Special Olympics Board, said that Obama called him to apologize. That is what happened. What you think is another matter.
0
Reply
Male 7,520
Gerry1of1 I would make a meme showing it but I might get in trouble, dunno if I can make memes with iab users or not lol.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
Hardly comparable to the actions of the Sec of State.  But just why the fuck White House IT people don't get on top of this kind of thing is beyond reason.  Sensitive stuff gets  sent to and fro.  Here's what addy you use.  Here are the security protocols.  Why is this even an issue?  
-1
Reply
Male 2,254
dromed It only went on for a short time, before she'd finished her security training. Everything was properly accounted for and archived, and she used the proper Gov't servers too.
At least as far as I've read about it.
In other words: nothing remotely like Hillary's crimes.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "It only went on for a short time,"

Now that's funny!

Judge: you are charged with torturing your wife and then murdering her. How do you plead?
Prisoner: Not guilty, your honor. It only went on for a short time.
Judge: Case dismissed. Short-time rule
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 Comparing a few weeks (if that) at the start of one's job before the course on proper use is completed to 4+ years of deliberate and purposeful deception? No that's just bullshit.
Followed by the proper archival of everything (Ivanka) vs the illegal destruction of data (Hillary) is even more bullshit. And 10 other facts, but facts don't matter to you, obviously.
If you have to make up fictional stories to back up your position? I suggest you have nothing and should just admit that fact. What did Ivanka murder, exactly?
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "If you have to make up fictional stories to back up your position?"
It was a fable. (A short story, containing a moral)
If I happen to run into Aesop, I'll be sure to tell him that you disapprove of his genre. He would have wanted to know that.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 So you deal in fables, and I deal in facts. No worries since you freely admit it.

In order to be considered "containing a moral" it needs to be actually related to the topic. Unless you equate the two "scandals" as being the same level of illegality? Even when Ivanka appears to not have broken a single law? Your fable is unrelated and unimportant fiction.
0
Reply
Male 2,793
dromed   Can't help but to agree on that.
0
Reply
Male 9,692
dromed  But just why the fuck White House IT people don't get on top of this kind of thing is beyond reason.  Sensitive stuff gets  sent to and fro.  Here's what addy you use.  Here are the security protocols.  Why is this even an issue?  

Incompetency that's This Administrations MO.  Where have you been?  Tanking the Economy, tanking the Government, just like he tanked his businesses.  We are getting the full Trump Experience.

To your point about why we don't "handle politician's stupidity better is because we don't control their stupidity".  We plan for it but we can't prevent it completely. We have and display rules to our Government employees, we could create skiff's and only distribute information in those skiff's and that's it, but think about cumbersome that is.  So in general we like to hope that some of the congressional aides aren't stupid as fuck but that's clearly the case here.  "IF you type any other DOMAIN other than @ don't send the classified mail to them."  Of course if a user wants to do that anyways all the have to do is reply.  The Government isn't decked out in all the latest and greatest technologies because it doesn't get the funding allocated to that.  The funding goes towards Military contracts and social security.  When it becomes a priority for an administration only then will it be fixed.  It's far far more complicated than you make it sound.
5
Reply
295
normalfreak2 Tanking the economy?  Dude, wtF are you talking about.  The economy is the one good thing going on.  Even CNN admits that.  Unemployment at a 50 year low.  During his time in office, the economy has achieved feats most experts thought impossible. GDP is growing at a 3 percent-plus rate. Meanwhile, the stock market has jumped 27 percent amid a surge in corporate profits.

Now a good bit of that is due to the work of prior administrations, but you cant say its tanking.  That's just silly.  Theres plenty of other stuff to hate on, but that aint one.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
kelly_hanna Lolz NF2 only has one horse to beat, and it's been dead for ages now.
The fact that no classified material was involved has no effect on him: facts do not matter, only the marching orders :/
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "The fact (sic) that no classified material was involved"
What is the source for your claim that no classified material was involved?
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 All of them. No one has even suggested she had access to classified materials, never mind sent them improperly. And since ALL the data in question is archived? There's a clear record of it: had any been classified we'd know.

What's your proof otherwise? Your pedantism is getting to be... boring.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
gohikineko "What's your proof otherwise?"
You apparently believe that when you make a claim, everyone else must either prove you wrong or accept the claim. There isn't a venue on Earth where that is true.

BTW 'all of them' is not actually a list.
0
Reply
Male 2,254
semichisam01 You and the others are claiming she committed one or more crimes, just like Hillary, where is your evidence of these crimes? I've seen none.

Where is your proof Ivanka sent classified material? I've given plenty that Hillary did it, including Comey himself saying so. To equate the two Ivanka would need to have done that, so prove it.
0
Reply
Male 3,052
normalfreak2 IT is mainly holdovers from Obama's administration. Remember the family that worked for most of the Democratic congress people and was stealing the system blind?
Bottom line it's all sloppy IT. At Amazon all we have to do is say "Infosec" and everyone loses their mind. When you leave you're out of the system in less than an hour.
0
Reply
Male 2,793
scheckydamon   It's even worse than that most of the people that do this are career people and have been at this job for years and/or decades.
0
Reply
Male 3,052
casaledana So they should know better, right? But that pension turns a lot of heads.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
normalfreak2 Well then you better hang that sign on 'ol Hill bag too.
0
Reply
Male 9,692
dromed I did here repeatedly.
0
Reply
Male 7,520
dromed AFTER we get a two year investigation of course.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
daegog Of course.
0
Reply