Ivanka used private email for gov't business

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Ivanka has to wait her turn. With 17 charges waiting for Hillary, she's first to trial.

*shrugs* in a perfect world she would be charged (Assuming secret information was sent to it), just like Hillary should have been.

But the DNC managed to maneuver things to make intent more important than violating the law, so that ship has sailed.

originally posted by: notsure1
Trump bashing time..

yay....

(Sigh) No, astonishing double standards time.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Ivanka has to wait her turn. With 17 charges waiting for Hillary, she's first to trial.

When, exactly? Come on, you need to admit that it's never going to happen.

If i ever get my hands on Ivaka i will punish the good looking lady like you would not believe , they would not need to lock me up i would kill myself

Oh, wow...

When I saw this headline, my first thought was "What? Is she crazy? That's illegal!"

Then I started reading.

It seems Ivanka, who assumed the role of "Advisor" last year, which is not an official position (as in does not require vetting by the Senate), did indeed use a private email account to send and receive emails while serving in that role. That was a mistake, and a pretty big one. She then was verified by government officials to have never been informed of the proper protocol, and turned over all emails related to government activities to the National Archives, She also changed over to an official government email account when informed of the protocol.

OK. Not good. There should be an official investigation into her emails conducted by the government with full access to her email account. If it is discovered that she improperly destroyed emails, knowingly sent classified information, or in any other way compromised national security, there should be consequences.

I have no issue with that.

But... what are the consequences? Lock her up? Nope... we can't do that. It's not that we shouldn't, or that she should get some sort of a pass for being who she is. That's not the problem. The problem is actually two-fold:

• During the Clinton email investigations, it was determined that she did indeed not only send out classified information, destroy emails and devices intentionally, but also lied about the content of those emails, and intentionally use a private server she herself commissioned as the Secretary of State, which is an official, Senate-confirmed Cabinet position wherein a part of her position included determining preliminary classification of documents and treating them accordingly.
  
  Hillary Clinton was never prosecuted for any of the above. She has not been locked up, has not been convicted, has not been sentenced, has not been indicted, and has not even been censured.
  
  Ivanka is apparently guilty of improperly sending emails as a non-official government employee, wherein she was not in any way responsible for preliminary classification of sensitive documents, sent no documents that were classified, has so far apparently complied fully with all requests to correct the issue, has not been even accused of deleting or destroying emails or devices, and did not commission a private server.
  
  Under the concept of fair application of justice, Ivanka cannot be prosecuted, indicted, or charged with any crime. The precedent was set for Hillary Clinton.
  
  
• Ivanka entered government service in early 2017. All of the alleged misdeeds occurred within the remaining portion of 2017. A government report states she was not receiving the guidance afforded other government employees, likely due to the misuse of her email accounts (as in, not realizing or checking her official account).
  
  Hillary entered National politics in 1989. She was exposed to government policies for around 25 years when she was Secretary of State. She was fully aware of the regulations surrounding classification and communication; to even attempt to deny that is ludicrous and presses the conclusion that Hillary was unfit for office in the first place. Yet, her exoneration by James Comey included the fact that he did not believe she acted 'with intent' and therefore would not be prosecuted.
  
  Since Hillary cannot be prosecuted or in any way censured due to a lack of intent, despite so many years serving in official government roles, it is not reasonable to conclude that someone with less than a year's experience in government would have acted 'with intent.' Therefore, Ivanka cannot be held accountable, again because of the lack of action concerning Hillary Cllinton.

This, leftists, is what happens when you play identity politics. Had you allowed the indictment of Hillary, as per established law, Trump would still be President and Ivanka could be prosecuted. It's not the right or the alt-right or the racist, sexist, super-duper control-alt-shift right that set the precedent.

IT WAS YOU!

Live with it, and hopefully learn from it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Already precedent set in these cases.

HRC got nothing.

That sets the standard im afraid.

Carry on.

Actually that is incorrect.

Clinton used her private email server against DoJ rules, of which, as the ultimate arbiter of those rules, she was able to do.
She did not break any regulations or laws, she just used 'bad judgment'. (And, by the way, her server was NEVER hacked, unlike the Government's server that she "should" have used).

As a result of that regulatory "loophole", actual laws and regulations were put in place.

Ms. Trump violated actual laws and regulations.

a reply to: rnaa

Ms. Trump violated actual laws and regulations.

Title and code, please.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Already precedent set in these cases.

HRC got nothing.

That sets the standard im afraid.

Carry on.

Actually that is incorrect.

Clinton used her private email server against DoJ rules, of which, as the ultimate arbiter of those rules, she was able to do.
She did not break any regulations or laws, she just used 'bad judgment'. (And, by the way, her server was NEVER hacked, unlike the Government's server that she "should" have used).

As a result of that regulatory "loophole", actual laws and regulations were put in place.

Ms. Trump violated actual laws and regulations.

LMFAO

And you believe it..... TOOO FUNNNNNNYYYYYY

a reply to: TheRedneck

During the Clinton email investigations, it was determined that she did indeed not only send out classified information,

False. That HAS NOT BEEN determined. It HAS BEEN determined that some material on her server may have been classified after she had dealt with it by other agencies, but that is not her problem if somebody changes the classification after the fact. Further, it HAS BEEN determined that any such classified information that might have appeared on her server would have had to have been sent to her from a non-secure server that had been manually loaded from a secure server by a presumably competent professional (i.e. CIA, NSA, FBI, etc) violating the law to do so. Secure servers do not have access to the 'ordinary' internet that could reach the private Clinton server so the person would have had to go out of their way to transfer it.

destroy emails

Personal stuff, not work stuff. Straightforward, normal, maintenance. Do you keep every email you have ever received? Really? Even all the requests for you to help get some inheritance out of Nigeria?

and devices intentionally,

There is ZERO evidence that that occurred.

but also lied about the content of those emails,

At no point did she lie. And she was under oath for 11 hours don't forget - if she lied under oath she would have been charged. Her husband was charged for a heck of a lot less.

and intentionally use a private server she herself commissioned as the Secretary of State, which is an official, Senate-confirmed Cabinet position

That part is true, however, it was NOT illegal. But while it was wrong it is important to note that her server was never hacked while the State Department server that she should have used WAS.

wherein a part of her position included determining preliminary classification of documents and treating them accordingly.

It HAS BEEN determined that Clinton DID use secure servers (not State Department email servers) when discussing material known to be classified or potentially classified.

From my reading of this just this morning it seems that what Ivanka has done while similar to what happened with Clinton does seem less severe. Clinton should have known better and given her position as Secretary of State shouldn't have been using her personal email alongside classified information. So there is something of a difference I believe between what Clinton done and what Ivanka has done.

However, there are undoubtedly similarities and one has to accept that after the scandal that ensued during the campaign over Clintons use of private email this cannot just be swept under the carpet. By the Trump team not acting over this they are undermining the entire case against Clinton and her use of private emails, they need to be consistent and while I recognise that there a differences there are still striking similarities.

So I wouldn't go as far as saying we should be locking Ivanka up but I do think her security clearance should be revoked (lets face Trump has revoked clearance for much less), I think her emails should also all be under review so it can be established if she has sent anything sensitive (not saying that they should be made public just a internal review). Finally I think that this would be a good opportunity for the Trump team to start looking at moving some of Trumps family out of the White House, a big criticism has been the influence his family seem to have over him and him acting swiftly against her for this would science those criticism.

Basically, sack her, don't lock her up though, and Trump has sacked people for less so I don't see why it should be a problem at the very least her role as advisor should be under review.

originally posted by: Jusvistn

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Already precedent set in these cases.

HRC got nothing.

That sets the standard im afraid.

Carry on.

Actually that is incorrect.

Clinton used her private email server against DoJ rules, of which, as the ultimate arbiter of those rules, she was able to do.
She did not break any regulations or laws, she just used 'bad judgment'. (And, by the way, her server was NEVER hacked, unlike the Government's server that she "should" have used).

As a result of that regulatory "loophole", actual laws and regulations were put in place.

Ms. Trump violated actual laws and regulations.

LMFAO

And you believe it..... TOOO FUNNNNNNYYYYYY

What I KNOW is what is reported by Wikipedia:

According to Harf, use by government officials of personal email for government business is permissible under the Federal Records Act, so long as relevant official communications, including all work-related emails, are preserved by the agency. The Act (which was amended in late 2014 after Clinton left office to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days) requires agencies to retain all official communications, including all work-related emails, and stipulates that government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.[40] NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained, require that they must be maintained "by the agency" and "readily found," and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."[40] Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.
...
The report also reviewed the practices of several previous Secretaries of State and concluded that the Department's recordkeeping practices were subpar for many years.[54] The Inspector General criticized Clinton's use of private email for Department business, concluding that it was "not an appropriate method" of document preservation and did not follow Department policies that aim to comply with federal record laws. The report also criticized Colin Powell, who used a personal email account for business, saying that this violated some of the same Department policies.[54] State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the report emphasized the need for federal agencies to adapt "decades-old record-keeping practices to the email-dominated modern era" and said that the Department's record-retention practices had been improved under the current Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Clinton's successor.[54] The report also notes that the rules for preserving work-related emails were updated in 2009

So you don't think that all those Congressional hearings and bad publicity produced any improvements at all, is that what you are saying?

Lock her up, lock her up lock her up.

Right wingers are nothing but hypocrites, and the scum of the earth.


a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

a reply to: soundguy

and the scum of the earth.

That title is reserved for political trolls. Try again.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Jusvistn

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Already precedent set in these cases.

HRC got nothing.

That sets the standard im afraid.

Carry on.

Actually that is incorrect.

Clinton used her private email server against DoJ rules, of which, as the ultimate arbiter of those rules, she was able to do.
She did not break any regulations or laws, she just used 'bad judgment'. (And, by the way, her server was NEVER hacked, unlike the Government's server that she "should" have used).

As a result of that regulatory "loophole", actual laws and regulations were put in place.

Ms. Trump violated actual laws and regulations.

LMFAO

And you believe it..... TOOO FUNNNNNNYYYYYY

What I KNOW is what is reported by Wikipedia:

According to Harf, use by government officials of personal email for government business is permissible under the Federal Records Act, so long as relevant official communications, including all work-related emails, are preserved by the agency. The Act (which was amended in late 2014 after Clinton left office to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days) requires agencies to retain all official communications, including all work-related emails, and stipulates that government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.[40] NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained, require that they must be maintained "by the agency" and "readily found," and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."[40] Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.
...
The report also reviewed the practices of several previous Secretaries of State and concluded that the Department's recordkeeping practices were subpar for many years.[54] The Inspector General criticized Clinton's use of private email for Department business, concluding that it was "not an appropriate method" of document preservation and did not follow Department policies that aim to comply with federal record laws. The report also criticized Colin Powell, who used a personal email account for business, saying that this violated some of the same Department policies.[54] State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the report emphasized the need for federal agencies to adapt "decades-old record-keeping practices to the email-dominated modern era" and said that the Department's record-retention practices had been improved under the current Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Clinton's successor.[54] The report also notes that the rules for preserving work-related emails were updated in 2009

So you don't think that all those Congressional hearings and bad publicity produced any improvements at all, is that what you are saying?

Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource? No,

because even though Wikipedia is one of the Webs most popular reference sites, it isnt a credible resource because anyone is allowed to be a contributor to the website. Wikipedia Academic has posted an article explaining why it is a bad idea (en.wikipedia.org...:Academic_use)

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia 10 reasons you can't rely on information in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia provides Internet users with millions of articles on a broad range of topics, and commonly ranks first in search engines. But its reliability and credibility fall well short of the standards for a school paper.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia editors try their very hardest to maintain this site. Multiple measures, such as IP-bans and article protection, are used to prevent vandalism of this site and maintain its credibility. But Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong.

a reply to: rnaa

It HAS BEEN determined that some material on her server may have been classified after she had dealt with it by other agencies, but that is not her problem if somebody changes the classification after the fact.

Yes, it is. She was Secretary of State. It is an inherent part of her job to provide preliminary classification and treat communications as such.

Do you keep every email you have ever received? Really? Even all the requests for you to help get some inheritance out of Nigeria?

I can state with absolute certainty I have never physically destroyed a hard drive or device in order to delete emails.

There is ZERO evidence that that occurred.

Oh, please...

At no point did she lie. And she was under oath for 11 hours don't forget - if she lied under oath she would have been charged.

OK, fine... she "spoke things which were untrue." Sort of like you're doing.

That part is true, however, it was NOT illegal. But while it was wrong it is important to note that her server was never hacked while the State Department server that she should have used WAS.

That is the biggest bunch of hooey I have seen in a long time. Whether or not she got hacked has nothing to do with whether or not her private server was legal, and in no way can any reasonable person be expected to believe that setting up a private server in her basement is less of a criminal act that Ivanka using a Microsoft account she had before entering government service.

It HAS BEEN determined that Clinton DID use secure servers (not State Department email servers) when discussing material known to be classified or potentially classified.

That is also irrelevant. Government officials have to use government email for discussing classified information. That is how it is in this world. How it is where you are, watching unicorns prance around on rainbows, I do not know.

Please, save your partisan bull-pot-pies for someone else. I don't care to debate the obvious with the oblivious.

TheRedneck

Oh lordy here comes the double standard.
If Ivanka did it it's A OKAY
Hillary was a criminal who needed to be locked up.
Ivanka gets a new pair of shoes with red soles.

a reply to: carewemust

I cannot believe you.
What charges against Hillary?
Give it up. Hillary is never going to be charged with anything because she didnt do anything illegal. Give it up.
All of you just get into a twelve step program where you can get over it. Move on with your lives.

Oh that's so cute.

Well good luck proving "INTENT" against her.

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Thanks for the bombshell. If there's an example to be set, lets start with the former SoS.