Slashdot Mirror


Ivanka Trump Used Personal Account For Emails About Government Business (washingtonpost.com)

The Washington Post is reporting that Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send hundreds of emails last year to White House aids, Cabinet officials and her assistants. Many of the emails were "in violation of federal records rules," the report says. Ivanka's practices are reminiscent of the personal email account Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state. From the report: 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. Some aides were startled by the volume of Ivanka Trump's personal emails -- and taken aback by her response when questioned about the practice. Trump said she was not familiar with some details of the rules, according to people with knowledge of her reaction. A spokesperson for Ivanka Trump's attorney and ethics counsel, Abbe Lowell, "acknowledged that the president's daughter occasionally used her private email before she was briefed on the rules, but he said none of her messages contained classified information," reports Washington Post.

"While transitioning into government, after she was given an official account but until the White House provided her the same guidance they had given others who started before she did, Ms. Trump sometimes used her personal account, almost always for logistics and scheduling concerning her family," he said in a statement. He went on to say that her email use was different than that of Clinton. "Ms. Trump did not create a private server in her house or office, no classified information was ever included, the account was never transferred at Trump Organization, and no emails were ever deleted," Mirijanian said.

219 of 498 comments (clear)

  1. Lock her up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems reasonable

    1. Re:Lock her up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey, if you want to try and convict Clinton, I'm all for it. There's a shit ton of politicians who have ignored the law either in adhering to security clearance or engaging in government business on personal accounts to avoid public scrutiny and documentation. If we want to go after Snowden, we should be going after Clinton.

    2. Re:Lock her up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is a rotten shame that Comey created the precedent on which Ivanka can't point to if she is ever charged.

    3. Re: Lock her up? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      If only there was someone in charge who had a friendly acting attorney general and could direct him to open up a Justice Department investigation into Clinton...

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Lock her up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How dumb, or oblivious, or entitled is she...? At a minimum, you'd think she'd want to avoid that particular sort of attention, just because..

    5. Re:Lock her up? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Ivanka is also named in this lawsuit filed by New York over massive abuse by the Trump foundation, and criminal referrals were also made to the IRS. It certainly doesn't stop here.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    6. Re: Lock her up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Own server at home.....nope.

      US gov Confidential emails....nope.

      US gov Secretary of State....nope.

      Erased emails....nope.

      Try again.....

    7. Re: Lock her up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's like trying to get Bill off the hook by demanding prosecution of everyone who ever got a blowjob.

    8. Re:Lock her up? by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      Yes, right after they lock up Hillary.

      Here's an idea, put them both in a fight to death. Winner walks free.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    9. Re:Lock her up? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the crooks from the other side too. They are everywhere in government not just the republicans. Just sayin. You seem a little biased there, or do you actually believe your team can do no wrong? I personally don't care I'm sick of all of the government from presidents to dog catcher. TERM LIMITS PEOPLE!!!

    10. Re:Lock her up? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I was gonna say nekkid then I remembered about Hilary.. Can I put a paper bag on my head for the fight incase clothes get torn?

    11. Re:Lock her up? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Seems reasonable

      For not mishandling classified information? When we didn't lock up a SOS who did mishandle classified information?

      Why?

    12. Re:Lock her up? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      That might actually be a recommendation. Don't worry though, there would be audio description. Gotta be inclusive and all that.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    13. Re:Lock her up? by vtcodger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Lock her Up" For what?

      Lost in all this is the fact that Ms Trump's use of personal eMail is entirely legal. As was Ms Clinton's mostly. There is, and was in Ms Clinton's day, a requirement that the emails be archived and accessible to the public. Nowadays, there is a requirement that the archiving be done within a time limit (20 days?). In Ms Clinton's day there was no such time limit. GWB's first term Secretary of State Colin Powell still hasn't gotten around to archiving HIS 2001-2005 emails.

      And yes, commingling of official and personal eMails is OK. Only the official stuff has to be archived.

      The issue of classified material on Ms Clinton's server is a separate issue -- complicated by the fact that as Secretary of State, Ms Clinton has considerable power to reclassify stuff. For all I or anyone else around here knows, a formal hearing would determine that Ms Clinton actually declassified the material in question, but didn't properly mark it. That's a parking ticket level misdemeanor offense at best. Not something people are locked up for even in America.

      The outrageous conduct of Donald Trump and his crazed supporters seriously clouds the issue of course. And Democrats can smile and laugh for a few days about this. But really, there's apparently no fire and damn little smoke here.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    14. Re: Lock her up? by DeBaas · · Score: 1

      It's like trying to get Bill off the hook by demanding prosecution of everyone who ever got a blowjob.

      well, here at /. we should be safe then.

      --
      ---
    15. Re:Lock her up? by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      Not sure she broke the law. Fortunately she didn't delete her emails to cover her tracks like former secretary of state did to avoid further investigation.

      That being said, find something classified and you'd surely have a case.

    16. Re:Lock her up? by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree mostly. Legally this is a nothingburger, and even less of a nothing burger than Hillary's email were.

      Where i disagree with you is with the significance of the optics.

        Trump and the republican party at large wandered around for months making a mountain out of Hillary's email -- Fox news still seems to make it a landing page headline every few days.

      Given that environment, anyone with an ounce of common sense associated with Trump or the republican party would have made damned sure not to be using a personal email for government work of any sort.

      If you make it a central plank of your campaign that Hillary Clinton's misuse of email not only disqualifies her for public service, but demands a prosecution, demands incarceration. Then you don't get caught using a personal email server yourself, no matter how trivial it REALLY is.

      Legally there's no fire here, but the apparent level of hypocrisy, arrogance, and stupidity on display is staggering. Or it would be if it wasn't just another day in this dumpster fire of an administration.

    17. Re:Lock her up? by kammermusik · · Score: 1

      You got it wrong: America first.

    18. Re:Lock her up? by McFortner · · Score: 1

      When Sec. of State Hillary Clinton did it, the FBI and the Mainstream Media said it wasn't a crime, so what's the big deal.



      ...oh, wait, it's the other party and NOW the Media and the Democrats are screaming that it's a crime....

      --
      Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    19. Re:Lock her up? by skr95062 · · Score: 1

      Because she is NOT Hillary Clinton.

    20. Re:Lock her up? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      Correct. At the very least, Trump and Fox ought to admit that - oh, by the way, we were just kidding when we were running around with our hair on fire over Hillary's emails.

      But hey, Trump still won't admit he was lying about Obama's birth certificate...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    21. Re:Lock her up? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      ...that we know of. She may have deleted plenty of emails - and they may have been the personal kind (like the kind Hillary says she deleted) that did not have to be archived. And of course the issue of classified stuff on Hillary's server was a case of not-yet-classified stuff or mismarked stuff. All 'exception that proves the rule' cases - why else do you think Comey didn't think any sane person would indict her?

      Unless you're a conspiracy theorist that thinks he was protecting her - and that October surprise letter about reopening the investigation was... well, what exactly? If anything, Comey was of the opinion that "there must be something there - and the earliest, deleted emails will prove it". He essentially said as much at his hearing before the Senate - all with zero evidence, mind you.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    22. Re: Lock her up? by Lil'wombat · · Score: 1

      And you know for a fact that the answer to all of those concerns is Nope?

      --

      Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another

  2. let the apologists start jumping through hoops by f00zbll · · Score: 1, Troll

    I hate both parties. Both parties suffer from personality worship disorder. Some one needs to invent slime-antivirus to clean out DC.

    1. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      False equivalence. The president's daughter sending emails with a personal account when she doesn't have any official position is not the same.

      The Secretary of State systematically using her own server she had created for the purpose, willfully deleting 30,000 pieces of evidence, the FBI still finding 110 counts of felony mishandling, and getting away with it because "no reasonable prosecutor would risk their career by harming the Clintons" is not at all the same.

      This is a tech news site. Everyone here should be acting in their best interests. There have been and currently are IT guys in prison for sending one email with classified information in the way Hillary did tens of thousands of times.

      We really, really need to not let this one go. We are the ones that will and do pay in the end.

    2. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by aaronb1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ross Perot got pretty close, but by and large his party was eviscerated by the large chunk of his voters who preferred Bush Sr. and realized they caused Bill's election.

      That's where the lesser of two evils doctrine in US elections got reiterated to the American public.

    3. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is the same.

      Relaying private information about where and when you'll be is extremely powerful for anyone who would want to harm or coerce others

    4. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

      False equivalence. The president's daughter sending emails with a personal account when she doesn't have any official position is not the same.

      Senior Adviser to the President is an official position.

    5. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by e3m4n · · Score: 2

      Or just abolish all parties. Have a primary election and keep the top 3 or 4 to move onto the election. Thats how quite a few mayoral races work. Getting sick of the whole polarization. This would likely make it so no one group gets more than 30-35% of the votes. Thst would force them to have to work together.

    6. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's where the lesser of two evils doctrine in US elections got reiterated to the American public.

      One solution is ranked choice voting, which was used in Maine on Nov 6th. A few voters were confused, and counting the ballots was slow, but it is clearly an improvement over plurality voting. Hopefully it will catch on nationally.

      Another improvement is the nonpartisan primaries used in California state (but not federal) elections. Only the top two proceed to the general election, regardless of party. So in some liberal districts the general election is blue-on-blue. This system tends to encourage moderates over wing-nuts, and California is slowly becoming less dysfunctional.

    7. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Ross Perot got pretty close

      He may have won, but he dropped out of the race for a while.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Informative

      One solution is ranked choice voting, which was used in Maine on Nov 6th. A few voters were confused, and counting the ballots was slow, but it is clearly an improvement over plurality voting. Hopefully it will catch on nationally.

      This. ShanghaiBill, I rarely agree with what you say. But you're right on this one. Arrow's Impossibility Theorm (linked in the Wikipedia article you provided) states that no election system is perfect. But runoffs (or its simpler alternative, ranked voting) are the best of all the imperfect solutions.

      Another improvement is the nonpartisan primaries used in California state (but not federal) elections. Only the top two proceed to the general election, regardless of party. So in some liberal districts the general election is blue-on-blue. This system tends to encourage moderates over wing-nuts, and California is slowly becoming less dysfunctional.

      Hm. Yes, better ... but not as good as runoff/ranked voting IMHO. It encourages multi-party participation.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    9. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by whoever57 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ranked-choice would be better, but we need to address the rampant gerrymandering.
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      How you choose matters little if your vote doesn't carry the same weight as others.

      On top of the gerrymandering, we have the problem that the Constitution confers an larger influence on the Presidency and the House (and originally, also the Senate) to voters in small states.

      Then, there is voter suppression going on in multiple states.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    10. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by AlanObject · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I hate both parties. Both parties suffer from personality worship disorder.

      The important thing, however, is that you have managed to paint yourself as superior to all others without shouldering any burden of of producing, much less implementing via popular vote, any solutions. Well done.

    11. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ivanka knows she can blow her father to get a pardon. Hillary knows she could not.

    12. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by p4nther2004 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Daughter of the President....

      Why does the "Daughter of the President" have an office in the White House.

      Does anyone else remember Chelsea having an office in the White House? How about Sasha or Malia Ann?

    13. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The President is using his personal non-secure phone to talk about government business every fucking day! He has done this since he took the oath of office. He is endangering his own life and the security of the country by doing so.

      Where is your outrage over that?

      Stop lying. You are pretending to be "Fair and Balanced", but what you are truly doing is spewing right wing disinformation.

      If being a hypocrite was a toxin you would be dead and the region around your body would be treated like a radioactive disaster zone.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    14. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      False equivalence. The president's daughter sending emails with a personal account when she doesn't have any official position is not the same.

      Spin, spin, my little hamster wheel, rationalize all ill thoughts away.

    15. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by shilly · · Score: 1

      It would also risk exacerbating the cult of personality, though, because individual name recognition would count for even more

    16. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by ytene · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we're going to contemplate a rethink of the mechanics of government, can I suggest that we start at "first principles"?

      I may have this completely wrong (and happy to be corrected, but this is secondary to my point)... but I think that the origins of what we currently think of as representative democratic government originates in the UK in the Middle Ages. In return for money for wars, the King was forced to give up some power and through that deal, the UK gradually transitioned to representative government. The House of Commons in the UK was founded in 1341 - the fourteenth century!

      Here's the key part... The technology of the day was "horse and rider". It took between 4 days and one week to travel from London to York. The fastest means of communication was a courier on a fast horse... This meant that the only way the areas in the north of the country could participate in the decisions of government was to pick a volunteer who would travel to London (the seat of power) and represent the town or village. What has happened, then is that we have adopted a model of government that was effectively forced by the limitations of transport of the age.

      In other words, we have based today's model of government upon a set of conditions that are very nearly 700 years old and are completely out-dated.

      With modern communications technologies it is entirely practical for our government to allow us, as citizens, to participate at a much greater level than we do today. Indeed, any major decision could easily be supported by an all-digital referendum. For example, we might decide that we would only go to war with another country if a democratic majority of citizens agreed that it was necessary to do so.

      When I make this observation in discussions with friends, I sometimes get challenges along the lines of, "It would be too easy to rig those sorts of votes..." but to which my response is always to point out that every single day we process billions of dollars worth of transactions electronically. Many people conduct their banking by mobile phone. Many more use the internet. So there are ways and means by which we could make this secure.

      You might wonder why is it that we don't have this form of more democratic voting already? Why do we continue to rely upon representative government if a better alternative is available? The answer is simple: corruption is much easier to achieve when you only have a small number of people you need to bribe/blackmail/coerce. No? Just look at the amount of money in politics. Just look at the amount spent in campaign contributions? Just look at the number of lobbyists running around in the halls of power. A move toward distributed democratization would truly give power back to the people. It would also reduce the vast and expensive machine of government to an administrative office that served the will of the people.

      That has to be a good thing.

    17. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by gtall · · Score: 1

      I think that says just about all you need to know about the President.

    18. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      False equivalence. The president's daughter sending emails with a personal account when she doesn't have any official position is not the same.

      Yes the president getting his kids to do his work without even setting them up is pretty shitty.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    19. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by gtall · · Score: 1

      Oh stop it, no one believes anything Trump says. It's impossible for him to endanger national security. Even the CIA published their report on the journalist killed by the Crown Dunce of Saudi Arabia rather than tell Trump first. That should tell you how much they trust him.

    20. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as evidenced by Bill's re-election.

    21. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason we don't have more direct democracy is that to work properly it requires the population to be well informed, and for the most part populations aren't. People prefer to delegate to elected representatives so that they don't have to become an expert on everything government gets involved in and so that theoretically informed decisions are made.

      Another issue is that direct democracy is rather powerful, and democracy relies on individuals and individual institutions not having too much power. Checks and balances.

      Democracy is a process too, so the nature of individual votes on often binary questions isn't really suited to it.

      As an example of what can go wrong, look at Brexit. The population was not informed, in fact most of the information that was available was false or misleading. The question was both binary and unclear: leave or remain, but neither position was defined. And after a slim majority voted in favour of leaving that single event has been used to wield an enormous amount of power, so much so that new balances had to be introduced and it's not clear yet if they are strong enough.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Trump is draining the swamp and re-filling it with his own friends and family. Kinda like how you need to get a cesspit emptied now and then.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by GbrDead · · Score: 2

      > every single day we process billions of dollars worth of transactions electronically.
      Your analogy is wrong because:
      1. In the case of financial transactions: The correct execution of the operation (money transfer) is in the best interest of those who (banks) execute it.
      2. In the case of elections: The correct execution of the operation (counting votes) is NOT in the best interest of those who (politicians currently in power) execute it. They just want to win again. Why would they bother to count and do it honestly?

    24. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Jhon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      " I think that the origins of what we currently think of as representative democratic government originates in the UK in the Middle Ages"

      "With modern communications technologies it is entirely practical for our government to allow us, as citizens, to participate at a much greater level than we do today"

      There is a reason our (United States) government was *NOT* set up like the UK. Our founders found the build of parliamentary forms of government wildly unstable -- and a new "government" could and demonstrably DID enact law based on the passions of the moment. Such laws ended up contributing to the Revolution and much of the tyranny we excoriated. Read the bill of rights -- much it was because of war crimes committed by the Crown against the colonies.

      The Senate was *NOT* supposed to be elected by the people -- they were supposed to be appointed by respective states to represent the states interests. The 17th amendment changed that -- and while I understand the reason why, it had unintended consequences on our republic. And we *ARE* more a republic than a democracy -- or at least were were originally designed to be so. Senators were to be allowed to serve without the need to round support (campaign) and no be influenced by the passions of the population to any great degree.

      The House of representatives was to directly represent the people and were democratically elected. While the Senate was designed to have more POWER than the house -- the house was granted the purse strings on funding to balance that. With some effort, the House can reign in the Senate.

      The President was never meant to be directly elected by the people, but by the states. Each state has a democratic election for the President. Well, not REALLY, they are voting for whom their state will support -- and that support is weighted to match the number of representatives they have in Congress (a fairly close match to population, but not perfect). That's why it doesn't MATTER if you get 1 more vote or 2 million more votes for president in a given state -- you get the ENTIRE states weight in electors. Again, this was by design. The fear was that we would have an executive who would represent the interests of the larger/richer states at the time (Virginia, in 1787, was a prime example) and ignore the smaller, less populous states. This would force some type of compromise in getting an executive in office and force them to not ignore parts of the nation.

      There's a great story (probably apocryphal -- but pretty demonstrative of the thought at the time) where Jefferson, when returning from France after the Constitution was adopted sat with Washington having tea. Jefferson asked "Why two houses, why a Senate? Why not just one, representing all the people?" And Washington asked "Why do you pour your tea in your saucer?" Jefferson responded: "To let it cool so I do not get burned". Washington answered: "And that's why we have the Senate -- to let new law cool and be tempered by time and thought".

      The fact is, our country was founded based on trying to "FIX" those shortfalls in the various governments of the world at the time. They were more afraid of democracy than of monarchy. It was their genius when they put power in the hands of the people to FIX problems that may occur if any one part of our government became too powerful -- by voting in people to cut the purse strings and starve it off the vine of our nation.

    25. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Interesting post. Regarding this:

      The Senate was *NOT* supposed to be elected by the people -- they were supposed to be appointed by respective states to represent the states interests. The 17th amendment changed that -- and while I understand the reason why, it had unintended consequences on our republic. And we *ARE* more a republic than a democracy -- or at least were were originally designed to be so. Senators were to be allowed to serve without the need to round support (campaign) and no be influenced by the passions of the population to any great degree.

      There are still some countries that appoint, rather than elect, their senators. Canada, for example. Also, in the United Kingdom, most of the members of the House of Lords (roughly the equivalent to the Senate) are appointed, while a smaller number are granted membership through peerage. The latter include a handful of bishops and hereditary peers, as well as some in society and commerce who bought their way into the chamber (e.g., the now-disgraced Conrad Black, who obtained membership when he purchased the Telegraph.)

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    26. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      False equivalence.

      Only for a raging hypocrite.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    27. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Umm no sense it wasn't classified information that is in violation of the Espionage Act.

    28. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by kiviQr · · Score: 1

      if she does not have official position why she gets official emails?

    29. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I would be all for some sort of live voting system that is extended to the entire populace. As long as you could figure out a way to prove that the mob is educated on what they are voting on. I don't trust the general public with important issues if the format can be equated to a Facebook poll.

    30. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by ytene · · Score: 1

      This is an entirely fair and very important point - indeed, there is a very applicable saying:-

      "People tend to get the government they deserve..."

      Which translates to, "The more seriously you take the topic of government, the more stringent you are in making sure your elected officials actually behave themselves, the better government you will have."

      But the problem we face is: how to get there. If we accept your entirely reasonable argument, then we are saying that we are condemned, forever more, to a system of government that is implicitly and explicitly corrupt (and one in which corruption is designed-in as a feature, not a bug). We are saying that because people today can't be trusted with "big decisions" then they will never be given the chance for any. (And, sorry, but I don't believe that an answer of "Letting people vote for their representatives" is a valid response - because such an approach does not obligate successful candidates to actually follow the wishes of their electorate... and whilst the system may *ultimately* contain a check-and-balance in the form of voting such an incumbent out of office, the amount of damage an elected official can do in a single term in office is quite staggering.

      So on balance my view is that you have to start somewhere. Maybe you don't immediately give every decision to the general population... maybe you start with small things, give people some practice and work up to the more serious topics. But unless or until you start to encourage people to participate and live up to their responsibilities, we are going to be stuck with the cesspool of corruption that we have today.

    31. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Thank you Pascoea. Thank you.

      I'll go you one step further and propose that all names should be removed from our ballots. Every vote should be a write in. We currently have a system where people who've invested nothing more than listening to CNN pundits proclaim that welfare is going to be "stolen" by Republicans have to remember nothing more than "Democrat". Where people who've invested nothing more than hearing of a tweet about invaders has to remember nothing more than "Republican".

      If you can't be bothered to learn enough about a candidate so that you'll remember their name YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE!

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    32. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Ranked choice would do nothing about the people that know nothing. The vast majority of Americans would still hit R or D without even knowing who was on the ballot.

      The answer is to force every name to be a write in. Candidates only get votes for having a ballot on which their name is correctly spelled. Yes, it is a poll tax, but requiring voters to know enough to be able to spell the candidates name is a very valid requirement, IMHO.

      And gerrymandering or voter suppression doesn't matter if the Election Supervisor is either loosing ballots or stuffing in new ones.

      And the influence of smaller States being larger is not a problem. It is a design concession. It is what was agreed to in exchange for them being willing to join the union. Try to change that and you can fully expect them to not submit to being governed by New York and California.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    33. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      The answer is to force every name to be a write in

      That's actually how it worked in the very early days of the US. People brought in their own ballots with the appropriate name written on it. Of course, what happened very quickly was that the candidates would have people handing out ballots outside the polling stations, with the candidate's name on it.

      Here in CA, you can write in a name, but unless that person has registered, your vote won't be counted.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    34. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I've always had a delusional idea similar to what you were proposing. A questionnaire is developed that addresses "key" issues, let's call it 15 of them. The politicians privately respond to each question, the answers are "scrubbed" to obscure the candidate. (Not change the fundamental answer, just make it clear, concise, and not obvious who it is. "How do you feel about immigration?" wouldn't have the answer "Build that wall")

      At voting time, the voter assigns a priority to the 15 items, and selects one of the proposed solutions. A magical algorithm would then match the answers with the candidate, and that's the person's vote.

      I realize there are about three thousand "holes" in this idea...

    35. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 1

      You should check out Taiwan's crowd sourced government stuff https://www.technologyreview.c...

      --
      Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    36. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by ytene · · Score: 1

      OK, I think the point you make about "in the best interest" is important...

      But I was trying to use the example (perhaps unwisely) as an illustration of the fact that we can use digital solutions that provide authentication and non-repudiation with very significant activities (such as paying someone).

      Therefore, I would argue that we can apply the same principles that underpin the integrity of our banking system (such as authentication and non-repudiation) to provide a similar degree of assurance to a digital voting system.

      In fact, I have multiple issues that I have with the current implementation of things like voting machines, including:-

      1. The fact that many models do not have paper audit trails.
      2. The fact that many are known to be insecure and are still used.
      3. The fact that many seem to operate by being connected to the public internet (to transmit the results data to a central collection point) instead of being on a private network or being physically taken back to a central administration point.

      So your challenge is a good one because I think that it's really important that we don't simply blindly adopt the idea that we can rush out and digitize a process to give citizens a more active say in government through what I'll term "micro-referenda". Instead, what I tried to show with my original post was that the current model of government (elected representative) happened for a very robust set of reasons that were applicable 700 years ago and are less relevant now.

      What seems to have happened is that our adoption of technology in to the democratic process has simply been to automate the paper-based voting process, with no attempt to rethink the underlying model and ask ourselves, "Is this still the best way?"

      Important disclaimer: I am a rather cynical person who believes that there is a hardened core of "elected" officials who believe (after many years in office) that they have an inherent "right" to govern us and that we should just go about our business and leave them to tell us what is best for us. I don't subscribe to that view. Instead, I believe that elected officials are our servants (we pay them via our taxes) and their job is to administer the necessary departments of government in an efficient and cost effective way, in alignment with the wishes of their electorate. I would be the first to concede that we simply don't have anything like that today.

    37. Re:let the apologists start jumping through hoops by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 1

      He has done this since he took the oath of office.

      Wrong.

      He started even before he took the oath.

      --
      "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
    38. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoops by j-beda · · Score: 1

      I've always had a delusional idea similar to what you were proposing. A questionnaire is developed that addresses "key" issues, let's call it 15 of them. The politicians privately respond to each question, the answers are "scrubbed" to obscure the candidate. (Not change the fundamental answer, just make it clear, concise, and not obvious who it is. "How do you feel about immigration?" wouldn't have the answer "Build that wall")

      At voting time, the voter assigns a priority to the 15 items, and selects one of the proposed solutions. A magical algorithm would then match the answers with the candidate, and that's the person's vote.

      Slightly related, the CBC put together something like this a while back: http://votecompass.com/ You enter your location and answer a bunch of questions then it matches those answers to the candidates you have on your ballot.

      When it was first launched, it caused a bit of a stir as people found out that their stance on various issues was actually better aligned with the "wrong" party. The obvious solution: change your opinion to match your party! I think the science is pretty clear that much of the time, that is in fact what we tend to do, unfortunately.

  3. Classified? by LarryRiedel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Using personal email for work and vice-versa is something everybody does, even though it's often against some policy.

    What matters is whether Classified information is being sent over unsecured links.

    1. Re:Classified? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      She’s not a whitehouse employee.

      If you mean she's not drawing a salary, that's irrelevant. She is in fact doing work in the whitehouse, so she must abide by the the relevant rules.

      She has the legal right to use perusal this email for whatever she wants.

      Unless it violates federal record rules, which TFA says is the issue. Maybe not worth more than a finger-wag, but it still needs to be addressed and fixed.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Classified? by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      She’s not a whitehouse employee

      She's a White House employee. Her job is called "Senior Advisor to the President". Even comes with a paycheck.

    3. Re:Classified? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      She's a White House employee. Her job is called "Senior Advisor to the President". Even comes with a paycheck.

      A paycheck that she does not receive.

      Not that that changes anything of course. She is indeed an employee.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Classified? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Technically, she has to receive it and then sign it over to the Treasury. It's illegal to volunteer for a Federal government job, so they have to jump through the hoop of issuing a paycheck that she gives back.

    5. Re:Classified? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hillary Clinton had the authority to designate the materials she might have been transmitting as classified. Ivanka does not.

    6. Re:Classified? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      What matters is whether Classified information is being sent over unsecured links.

      No, what matters is whether a law has been broken. Hillary broke the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which required that everything she did go through government servers so it was available under the FOIA.

      If Ivanka did the same thing (caveat: I don't know whether the FOIA required her to restrict her emails to government servers for preservation, as Hillary's were (Note that Hillary was a Cabinet Officer - Ivanka isn't, but while that might be relevant, it might not)), then Ivanka was just as wrong.

      Now, arguably, the law was stupid. I happen to like the notion of holding the government accountable, which is harder to do if they're allowed to do things in secret, but that's just me. But while the law exists, it is binding on everyone, Rep, Dem, or Independent....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Classified? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      don't know whether the FOIA required her to restrict her emails to government servers for preservation,

      It does. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:Classified? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      For Hillary, yes. For Ivanka, according to that "right wing" source Newsweek, reports:

      In a statement to Newsweek, a White House spokesperson pointed out that Trump was not a federal employee at the time she sent the February 28 email. When she became a federal employee in March, “she made clear that one of her reasons for doing so was to ensure that she would have access to government-issued communications devices and receive an official email account to protect government records,” the spokesperson said. The spokesperson added that prior to her obtaining an official account, Trump’s emailing other official accounts “ensured the records were preserved and available under the Federal Records Act.” Trump did not have an official email account as a first daughter at the time, according to the spokesperson.

      What few e-mails were sent, were sent BEFORE she was a Government employee and required to use Government e-mail servers. She requested to become a Federal employee so she could use Federal e-mail systems. There is NO claim she used her personal e-mail AFTER she became a Government employee. This is a nothingburger created by Hillary's supporters to try to justify her brazen breaking of the LAW regarding e-mail and security.

    9. Re:Classified? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Using personal email for work and vice-versa is something everybody does, even though it's often against some policy.

      Sure, though if Ivanka was paying attention in 2016 you'd think she'd be a bit more careful.

      What matters is whether Classified information is being sent over unsecured links.

      Which is a completely separate manner from using personal email for work.

      Neither Clinton's official state dept email address nor Ivanka's official white house email were cleared for sending classified information either. Classified information was supposed to be sent over a completely separate system.

      It's just a perception issue. A few pieces of classified info going through your work email is a relatable mistake, but if they're going through your personal email address (even if you use it for work) it suddenly feels like you're trying to do something sketchy.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    10. Re:Classified? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      What matters is whether Classified information is being sent over unsecured links.

      Which POTUS does regularly.

      What really matters is if it can send a focus group into fits of involuntary rage.

    11. Re:Classified? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      As a Trump, she will say her paychecks are signed over then quietly bank them. Trumps only play wealthy people on TV.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re:Classified? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Using personal email for work and vice-versa is something everybody does, even though it's often against some policy.

      Is that really true, though, given web email and the capability of having multiple email apps on your phone? I have a personal email that I access at work, but I don't send work emails through it, just like I don't send personal emails through my work address. Maybe for old people or luddites who only have their work email, but I'd think anyone posting on Slashdot has at least two or three email addresses they use regularly.

    13. Re:Classified? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      First of all, that is bullshit. Secondly, you don't seem to understand that "most of those emails" (were about logistics, etc.) is just a weasel way of saying that some of them were not.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    14. Re:Classified? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      She is now, what he is stating is that she wasn't when this occurred. Instead of letting your rage blind you maybe you should smoke a bowl calm down, read and understand what you're replying to before you click reply.

    15. Re:Classified? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Bullshit

    16. Re:Classified? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? A large amount of the complaints was that she was using that personal email account to send her official schedule to places such as childcare, school and friends.

    17. Re:Classified? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      She was working at the White House, for the President, so all records needed to be preserved.
      If she wasn't a government employee, she had no business working at the White House for the President.

  4. Hearings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Some hearings should get to the bottom of this right quick

  5. Re:LOL by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2

    Yes. But with the whole Brexit brouhaha in the UK and increasingly authoritarian governments coming to fruition in several nations around the world we're hardly alone, unfortunately.

    --
    Happy people make bad consumers.
  6. How is this different from ... by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Ms. Trump did not create a private server in her house or office, ..."

    How is using the Trump Organization's server any better than using one in her own home or office? In fact, it is likely worse, because there will be more people with administrative access, simply because it is a bigger organization.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:How is this different from ... by Barny · · Score: 2

      Oh for some mod points. Exactly this.

      Clinton's server was, assuming it was configured competently, secure. Ivanka is using a cloud service backed server (Microsoft).

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    2. Re:How is this different from ... by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      its not. The two questions here are

      1) how will anyone be able to do anything about it considering the free pass to HRC? In the latter case there was confirmed cases of documents she specifically instructed her staff to remove the classified warning and re-mail it over unencrypted SMTP. Yet she was basically called 'too stupid to knowingly or intentionally violate the law'. So short of some serious classified content, this wont go anywhere unless someone locks both of them up for not using secure government servers to conduct executive branch business. I would certainly compromise and let Ivanka go to jail if it meant HRC gets at least the same sentence.

      2) how are we going to stop this before it gets even more complex? The potential is far greater than the actual damage sofar. But this wont be true forever. Maybe a domain transfer of all personal domains to government servers for the express purpose of monitoring personal email while holding a position within higher government positions. You'd have to make the software idiot proof though. The mail app would have to have some image of a nondescript person with different hats. Change your hat to a working hat to see and respond to work email, change the hat again to respond to personal email. Separate the two accounts to different servers to provide a partition. Use elaborate spam software, not to look for spam, but to cross reference recent classified information against anything being sent out to the rest of the world.

  7. Re:LOL by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    It must be so embarrassing to be American right now

    It's really not.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  8. Conveniently not mentioned by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ivanka’s personal email is being hosted on a server running in Hillary Clinton’s basement.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Conveniently not mentioned by jma05 · · Score: 1

      Well obviously. The entire cloud runs from her basement server.

      https://www.xkcd.com/908/

  9. Re:Bogus headline by 51Cats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ivanka is Trump's daughter who has an official government position. She should be subject to the same rules as other employees. The first lady is Melania Trump. That is another person entirely.

  10. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Tell me about it, she murdered my entire family back in 1997... including me.

  11. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Last I checked you cannot resign being the presidents dauther.

  12. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since you don't know the difference between the wife and the daughter, (assuming there is one) we'll just take your opinion at face value.

  13. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wife and daughter are not mutually exclusive positions.

  14. I don't really care about the classification by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    of the emails. What I care about is that my public officials are using private email servers to get around public records requests.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  15. Re:Bogus headline by valnar · · Score: 1

    You must be part of that liberal tolerance I hear so much about. Congrats on upholding that stereotype.

  16. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

    She is a CIVILIAN. And her participation in the presidency is "Voluntary"

    The Secretary of State is a civilian. And also a voluntary position.

    Ivanka Trump is a Senior Adviser to the President, which is an official government position. Complete with all of us sending her a paycheck.

  17. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can resign from your position of "Senior Advisor to the President", which is an actual job in the White House.

  18. Re:Better question by Barny · · Score: 2

    Nepotism, plain and simple.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  19. Re:Better question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Even better question - why did you never complain about Michelle Obama having a high position in the white house driving policy and government edicts on her own?

    Or are you just naturally hypocritical?

  20. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Except she has that job. She's currently receiving a paycheck for it, which she signs over to the Treasury.

  21. "I'm the first daughter" - ivanka in a nutshell by beckett · · Score: 4, Informative
    From Bob Woodward's book "Fear: Trump in the White House"

    During a meeting in Priebus’s corner office Bannon and Ivanka got into an altercation.

    “You’re a goddamn staffer!” Bannon finally screamed at Ivanka. “You’re nothing but a fucking staffer!” She had to work through the chief of staff like everyone else, he said. There needed to be some order.

    “You walk around this place and act like you’re in charge, and you’re not. You’re on staff!”

    “I’m not a staffer!” she shouted. “I’ll never be a staffer. I’m the first daughter”—she really used the title—“and I’m never going to be a staffer!”

  22. Re: Oh NOW it’s important?! by gcore · · Score: 1

    https://slashdot.org/tag/clint... There were quite a few entries on the subject. Good research.

  23. Server? by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as she used the one in her home, I guess it would be ok?

    I mean, at least half of you MUST think that's ok (or you're hypocrites).
    The other half must condemn her for this (or you're hypocrites too).

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Server? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      The whole article is that kind of disgusting what-aboutism. The fact is that the email retention rules only really started applying at the beginning of the Obama administration*, so it's possible that Hillary made a mistake. There is no possibility Ivanka didn't know this was against the rules. To say nothing about how I expect more computer literacy from a 36 year old than a 70 year old.

      But, yeah, fuck both of their private email systems.

      * Both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private email as Sec. of State.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Timing is everything. The e-mails in question occurred before she was a Federal employee. She literally could not use Federal e-mail until she became a Federal employee. NO ONE is saying she used her personal e-mail AFTER she became a Federal employee.

      I guess you need to turn yourself in if you've ever e-mailed a Federal employee or Congressperson, because who knows - one day you may end up working for the Federal Government and then you will have used your personal e-mail for official business!

    3. Re:Server? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      As long as she used the one in her home, I guess it would be ok?

      I mean, at least half of you MUST think that's ok (or you're hypocrites).
      The other half must condemn her for this (or you're hypocrites too).

      Actually a lot of us thought Clinton's server was bad but not that big a deal.

      As for this... It's not bad on it's own, but it exposes the absurd hypocrisy of the right. This email thing was the biggest issue in the country! A major scandal disqualifying for office! Someone should go to jail!!! As long as it involves Clinton or some Democrat, otherwise it isn't even worth the thought to make sure you're not being a ridiculous hypocrite.

      Want more hypocrisy? Remember that terrible scary invasion of Central Americans who apparently vanished after the election? Or Trump skipping a major war ceremony in France because he didn't want to go out in the rain, and then skipping the traditional Veteran's Day ceremony so he could stay home and tweet.

      If Obama pulled that last one in 2010 you'd still be hearing about it today!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Server? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      So, you're just going to ignore the fact that she wasn't a federal employee at the time. Just like you'll ignore the fact that she wasn't dealing in the highest levels of classified information as part of her day job, and set up a private server in her own home to do it.

    5. Re: Server? by houghi · · Score: 2

      Just because somebody voted for Trump does not mean they agree or disagree with everything that happens. Same for the people who did not vote for him

      The issue is thatt many people, you included, think that there are two sides and you must be one or the other. Even astrology is more precise.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:Server? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Except that before she took up that official position she was already in the president's inner circle

      So, you're just going to ignore the fact that she wasn't a federal employee at the time. Just like you'll ignore the fact that she wasn't dealing in the highest levels of classified information as part of her day job, and set up a private server in her own home to do it. Yes, that is a straight copy and paste - because you straight up ignored those problems with your storyline the first time.

    7. Re:Server? by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      However, that does not make it illegal

      OF COURSE it was illegal. Anyone else would be serving decades in prison for mishandling classified evidence (using her unsecured server extensively & exclusively, without authorization) and obstruction of justice (destroying evidence while under FBI investigation). Even if there wasn't prison time for violating record keeping and FOIA laws which predate Obama's order on emails, despite what Democratic chicken-fuckers would have you believe.

    8. Re:Server? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      If she wasn't a federal employee at the time, what was she doing with an office inside the white house working for the executive branch of the government?

    9. Re:Server? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Not coming within a 20 lightyear-foot pole of being an equivalence to HRC's private email server. Not that it would justify HRC even if it did.

  24. It's worse by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ow is using the Trump Organization's server any better than using one in her own home or office?

    IIRC, during the campaign it came out that the Trump Org. server was a Win 2000 box. (Democrats argued that's how it was obvious they were the ones targeted, cause Trump's would have been trivial to hack.) Further, there is pretty ample evidence that both China and Russia have been pinging machines in Trump Tower at least since he announced.

    So, it's probably far less secure, and probably already compromised.

    There's also the factor that the record laws about email were at least new when Hiliary was SOS; Ivanka had a year and half lesson on it from her dad and every newspaper.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:It's worse by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Nevermind that the email record laws were not new for Hillary. Her staff admitted the previous Secretary of State told her to use a personal server to specifically get around that "onerous" reporting.

      You completely misunderstand. The new rule was that you could not use a personal server to get around the reporting. Both of Hillary's predecessors did so. So, they changed the rules and she didn't comply with the new version.

      That Windows 2000 server was one long forgotten and no longer used

      Care to point to a link, cause I never heard this before.

      The "pinging" from Russia was not much more than that.

      There was the bank pinging. But, IIRC, both the Russians and the Chinese have a lot more traffic going on.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  25. The people around them didn't help? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    It is a HUGE mistake to think that Hillary Clinton or Ivanka Trump know anything about technology.

    Hillary Clinton had a "private email server"? Is it sensible to think that a 71-year-old woman, in her late 60s back then, had ANY understanding of email servers?

  26. Re:LOL by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's really not.

    The data suggests otherwise.

    https://www.newsweek.com/donal...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. Re:Bogus headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ivanka is Trump's daughter who has an official government position. She should be subject to the same rules as other employees. The first lady is Melania Trump. That is another person entirely.

    Once upon a time Hyprocrisy mattered, didn't it? I mean even when a republican does it?

    Off the top of my head:
    Trump and his iphone.
    Trump with Russians in the Oval Office.
    Omarosa recording a conversation in what was almost undoubtably a closed and secure area.
    Ivaka using private email.
    Hell Comey had some private email.

    Trump not keeping up on his briefings, which is arguably worse than the Iphone thing. If there is one thing worse than an intelligence leak, is intelligence that should have lead to action that didn't.

    Trump lying about everything, after nicknaming people "Lying Ted" and similar. Hell he even said, with a straight face "I will never lie to you." Think about this. Obama said, "If you like your plan you can keep it," instead of "If you like your plan and it meets the new minimum coverage standards you can keep it," and they all but nailed him to a cross for years. Trump says, "I'm going to give you the best healthcare," and then he tries to destroy it, partly succeeds, and does nothing to replace it at all.

    Trump saying he is great for the press, health care, African Americans, Mexicans, etc, and doing things that show the opposite.

    Once upon a time hyprocrisy and lies mattered, but it doesn't seem to now. Very few have changed teams as a result. The Tribes are set. Sure a little movement happens, but mostly you just motivate both bases, with increasing hate and increasing devotion and/or fear. Hell Trump just talked smack about the guy in charge of getting Osama Bin Laden. The fox news article is, "RNC backs Trump attack on retired Navy Admiral William McRaven" In short, the republican national convention didn't repudiate him, they backed him up.

    Trump's words there were, "He was a hillary/obama backer" That's it. For Trump backing the opposing party, even if its not true, is the same as what? Being evil? Being wrong? I don't get it.

    It's clear that Trump has no decency, but shouldn't some other republicans stand up? It seems they are quite happy to walk down the nature trail to hell (road to authoritarian rule).

  28. Re:LOL by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is. It really is.

  29. Re:LOL by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    Well I don't want Donald Trump as a role model, either. That's irrelevant as to whether I'm embarrassed to be an American or not......all-in-all I'm really happy to be an American.

    The president is never a good representation of America. At any given time, half the country thinks he's trying to become Hitler (or an anti-christ), and a good third of the rest of the population thinks he's a nice guy but a bit misguided.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  30. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    About her use of e-mail:

    After advising her father in an unofficial capacity for the first two months of his administration, she was appointed Advisor to the President, a government employee, on March 29, 2017. She takes no salary.[3] Prior to becoming a federal employee, she used a personal email for government work.

    In other words, her e-mails were not an issue because she was not yet a Federal employee. But let's go ahead and consider that equivalent to the Secretary of State running a private server in her bathroom, and passing thousands of classified and Top Secret e-mails through it. By all means, show your hypocrisy!

  31. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    From Newsweek:

    After advising her father in an unofficial capacity for the first two months of his administration, she was appointed Advisor to the President, a government employee, on March 29, 2017. She takes no salary.[3] Prior to becoming a federal employee, she used a personal email for government work.

    She did this BEFORE being a Government employee. In other words - it isn't an issue. Or can we toss you in prison because you may have e-mailed a Government official sometime? Even if you weren't a Government employee?

  32. Re:LOL by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm about to eat a turkey and lots of good pie to celebrate my heritage, before heading out on a passport that is trusted and accepted in most of the world. What is there to be embarrassed about? It's a good country, as countries go. Even the complaints people have are mostly minor.....the vast, vast majority of us have healthcare, and most of us aren't racist. Working here is great, I have plenty of vacation, and can either work in a big city or afford a humongous house in a suburb (so big that some people get jealous of them and call them McMansions). I have my own preferences, but these are all options.

    Just like I don't expect most Russians to be like Putin, most people in the world are accepting of Americans. America is not the only good country, maybe it's not even the best country (that depends how you measure, of course), but it's a good one. Sorry you feel embarrassed about your nationality, maybe you should see a psychologist about that, because you have issues (by definition).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  33. If any Trump family member does/has done by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1, Interesting

    anything with even the whiff of actual/potentical illegality the DEM, GOP, Intelligence, Media and Deep State establishments will destroy, convict and jail those family members and anyone else even remotely involved.
    That is guaranteed by the current state of affairs at the federal government level. The concepts of Political Ideology, Justice and Politics have merged and are now one with the accepted Group Think.
    Honesty, Justice and Truth have no place in our current completely warped reality in Washington DC.

    Don't get me wrong, If actual crimes were committed justice should be served.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  34. Re:LOL by fred911 · · Score: 1

    We're kinda used to it, Obama started the trend.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  35. Hired someone??? She has NO knowledge of tech. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Obviously she knew enough to hire someone to set one up! And hired someone to purge emails!

    I've been doing technology support for decades. Recently I have wanted to find someone to do some computer hardware maintenance. I contacted an association of computer consultants. I did not find a sufficiently competent person.

    Does anyone think Hillary Clinton has ANY ability to understand ANYTHING about technology?

    It seems to me that the problems could have been caused by less-than-competent government workers who do not know how to communicate clearly.

  36. Re:LOL by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Funny

    heading out on a passport that is trusted and accepted in most of the world. What is there to be embarrassed about?

    Under Trump, U.S. Passport Value for Global Travel Is Plummeting

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  37. In hindsight I wouldn't have expected much by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    from Ross Perot. When I was a kid I thought he was an oil tycoon from how the media went on about him. Later I found out he made his billions cashing welfare checks. Literally. He got the contract to process the federal gov't's welfare checks and that's where all his money came from.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  38. She knew by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    they all did. She talked with Colin Powell about it. She knew it was wrong to store public documents and a private server. To her one and only credit she didn't throw Powell under the bus over it. But by then the media feeding frenzy was in full gear and her one and only noble gesture (taking responsibility for the whole fiasco) went nowhere.

    Hilary is very, very intelligent. Not saying she uses that intelligence in the most upstanding manor. But make no mistake, her failing was arrogance, not stupidity.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:She knew by larkost · · Score: 1

      You are missing a bit of context here, and that is the reason Clinton put up a server in the first place: she wanted a single device (a Blackberry due to its advantages at the time) that could handle both her personal and non-classified emails on one device (the vast majority of her classified emails were only ever on properly secured devices). She asked the State Department to set that up for her, and they balked. A contractor was hired, and set-up a system that worked the way she wanted.

      And you are wrong about one thing, there was no law at the time that prohibited this, only one that required that the emails be stored so that they were available for FOA requests. A similar request form congress (that was honoured) is what got this whole thing rolling.

  39. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Last I checked, every senior government position is "voluntary". Any of then can resign at any time. Ivanka has still been acting in official capacities, even if she doesn't have an official title or office.

    Remember when she plunked her widening ass down in daddy's chair at the G20 summit?

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  40. It will take a *minimum* of seven separate and mostly redundant congressional inquiries to get to the bottom of this! #POLITICALOUTRAGE am I doing it right @GOP?

    --
    imagine a soft, buttery paw gently pressing down onto a sleeping soldier's face. forever.
  41. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    And about her use of e-mail?

    Prior to becoming a federal employee, she used a personal email for government work.[87]

    Emphasis added. Not an issue. She wasn't a Federal employee when she used it - she literally had no way of using Federal e-mail account.

  42. Willfull Democratic Dumbfuckery by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ivanka didn't:

    • Rage against the opposing party for using private email accounts only to do the same thing herself two years later.

      Set up a private email server in her own house the way Hillary did.

      Send thousands of classified emails from said account.

      Destroy thousands of pieces of evidence while under FBI investigation.

    This is taking butthurt partisan false equivalencies to 11.

    1. Re:Willfull Democratic Dumbfuckery by cats-paw · · Score: 1, Funny

      you don't actually know if Ivanka didn't do any of that now do you ?

      We'd better investigate her for the next 10 years just to be sure.

      --
      Absolute statements are never true
    2. Re:Willfull Democratic Dumbfuckery by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Rage against the opposing party for using private email accounts only to do the same thing herself two years later.

      Yes she did.

      When. Is it as easy to find on Youtube as Hillary blasting the Bush Administration for using private email?

      Why does it matter where the server was, exactly?

      Why so willfully ignorant/obtuse? Other government officials have used private email. Hillary is the only one to set up her own server and use it extensively and exclusively.

      Send thousands of classified emails from said account.

      We don't know she didn't yet.

      As I just pointed out to MoJo, one of the more craven lies told by Democrats on Hillary's server is that the emails weren't marked as classified so it was no big deal. Which is total BS, as much of that information was inherently classified. If you're the SoS and you get or send an email about a country's nuclear weapons program, that message doesn't have to be stamped "classified" to be treated as such.

      Destroy thousands of pieces of evidence while under FBI investigation.

      We don't know she didn't yet.

      The fuck are you talking about. She deleted tens of thousands of emails while under FBI investigation, an indisputable fact. Why don't you try that and see how many decades the DOJ threatens you with for destruction of evidence.

      Hey I have a novel idea: let's make one set of laws and they apply to everyone of both parties. Lock them both up.

      Again: Hillary is the only one to set up her own server and use it extensively and exclusively. When she's served a sentence proportional to Krisian Saucier's (at which point she'll be dead from old age), call us.

    3. Re:Willfull Democratic Dumbfuckery by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Maybe less brainwashed false equivalencies? Hillary is the only government official to set up her own server, and use it extensively and excessively. 90% of the defense of Hillary is based on apples to oranges whatabboutery (Powell barely sent email, but some of it was on government accounts and some private so it's all equal and okay derp derp).

      The other 10% is based on BS so bad it insults even the intelligence of the person spreading it with a small butter knife. Nonsense like her server being more secure because some random government database was compromised (name a time the email of the CIA or Pentagon directors have been hacked) or how her emails were OK because they weren't first stamped "classified" by some State Department flunky. As if an email about sensitive information (like nuclear weapons programs) has to be stamped "classified" to be treated as such.

    4. Re:Willfull Democratic Dumbfuckery by jittles · · Score: 1

      Ivanka didn't:

      • Rage against the opposing party for using private email accounts only to do the same thing herself two years later.

        Set up a private email server in her own house the way Hillary did.

        Send thousands of classified emails from said account.

        Destroy thousands of pieces of evidence while under FBI investigation.

      This is taking butthurt partisan false equivalencies to 11.

      But when Ivanka did this it was a federal crime to use a personal email address for official business. And while you can claim she was an "unofficial" advisor, she had an office in the white house and they only claimed she was an unofficial advisor. If you have a government office, you are a government employee or office holder. What Hillary did that was illegal was to send emails that were classified through her personal email server.

    5. Re:Willfull Democratic Dumbfuckery by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Difference is Hillary Clinton had classified information on personal email servers in violation of the Espionage Act.

      Server location or distinction between personal vs government is important. One is allowed to have classified email on government servers that are controlled by the government.

  43. Re:Better question by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    Hillary was co-President with BIll, they used to talk about a two-for-one deal if he was elected!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  44. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is if you want to know which bottle to put the polonium in, NPC.

  45. Until she was briefed?! by fyzikapan · · Score: 1

    Wait, her dad's campaign, which she was heavily involved with, beat the Clinton email thing nonstop. How could she possibly have been unaware of the rules?

    1. Re:Until she was briefed?! by xlsior · · Score: 1

      "One set of rules for thee, and one for me"

      Laws are for the little people.

  46. Re:Bogus headline by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It's clear that Trump has no decency, but shouldn't some other republicans stand up?

    They have. Some rather vocally, too. Paul Ryan is retiring, for example, rather than deal with the shit storm. McCain was dying to get away from Trump. The problem is a lot of Republicans who opposed Trump felt it in the election: Ted Cruz literally hugged Trump to enable him to squeak by in a red state.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  47. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by makerfixer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's what makes these stories perfect. Either report on how someone outside of government had access to a government email account or how someone used a non-government account before and while transitioning into government. Report that the presidents wife Is illegally using government resources or that she didn't use them enough. Report that Trumps people are diplomatically inept and unwilling to take a perfectly reasonable meeting with Russia or report the scandal of how they were meeting with Russia... if you can flip a modern news story around and get just as bad of a scandal then it isn't news. And a lot of it isn't news. Evergreen quote: There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted â" and you create a nation of law-breakers â" and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

  48. break out the hammers... by Quake1v1 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they'll got full Clinton and start smashing hard drives and cell phones with actual hammers.

    PS:
    I fucking hate the Dems and Reps equally.

  49. Re:Bogus headline by Tough+Love · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is more than relevant because of how Trump trolls manufactured the original issue. Not to mention violently ironic. "To cover up her corrupt dealings." As a further embarrassment of the Trump crime family, this ranks right up there with Yeti Pubes.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  50. Re:LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Lok er UP!

  51. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by shilly · · Score: 1

    Um. I know you're very busy getting all indignant and stuff, but if you have a minute, I'd like to point out that the Secretary of State is not an elected official. So your sentence makes no sense.

  52. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Jesus fucking wept, you people. Ivanka has an official position in the government. Chelsea Clinton and the Obama daughters did not.

  53. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ivanka Trump is a Senior Adviser to the President,

    Which happened after her emails from a private server, at least according to Newsweek.

    Ivanka Trump is a Senior Adviser to the President, which is an official government position. Complete with all of us sending her a paycheck.

    Still a complete horseshit equivalency - even if she's been using private email since joining the White House staff. She's not an Original Classification Authority, the way Hillary was, trading in the highest levels of classified information as a part of her job. Nor has Ivanka set up her own private email server in Jared's house, nor has she used it exclusively.

  54. You can't avoid parties. They arise naturally by robbak · · Score: 1

    Parties provide advantages for politicians. So even if you don't make parties part of your political system, the people voted in will arrange themselves into something that acts like political parties, those parties will form alliances and coalitions, and those coalitions will merge into two distinct groups, who will divide the population down the center.

    As it is better that such things be regulated in some way, most countries make them part of the constitution, so their power is, to some extent, controlled.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
  55. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    much less an elected government official. L

    She's certainly not an elected official.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  56. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by stealth_finger · · Score: 4, Informative

    And about her use of e-mail?

    Prior to becoming a federal employee, she used a personal email for government work.[87]

    Emphasis added. Not an issue. She wasn't a Federal employee when she used it - she literally had no way of using Federal e-mail account.

    If she's not a federal employee why is she doing government work?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  57. False equivalence: 2018 is not 2009 by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have to add to this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/

    "...According to a summary of the meeting, the request was driven by Clinton's reliance on her BlackBerry for email and keeping track of her calendar. Clinton chose not to use a laptop or desktop computer that could have provided her access to email in her office..."

    "...Mills also asked about waivers provided during the Bush administration to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her staff to use BlackBerrys in their secure offices. But the NSA had phased out such waivers due to security concerns..."

  58. Re:Bogus headline by stealth_finger · · Score: 1, Troll

    Wow. So much hate, so little knowledge.

    Hint: Ivanka is not and never has been married to Donald Trump.

    Doesn't stop him from fucking her.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  59. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    And which she isn’t employed to meaning she’s not subject to the rules. Try again faggot.

    So she's just just a person wandering the white house, talking to everyone, sending emails and doing whatever because shes the pres' kid and that's totally? Just because you might not be technically employed doesn't mean rules don't apply to you, especially there.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  60. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Freischutz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ivanka Trump is a Senior Adviser to the President,

    Which happened after her emails from a private server, at least according to Newsweek.

    Ivanka Trump is a Senior Adviser to the President, which is an official government position. Complete with all of us sending her a paycheck.

    Still a complete horseshit equivalency - even if she's been using private email since joining the White House staff. She's not an Original Classification Authority, the way Hillary was, trading in the highest levels of classified information as a part of her job. Nor has Ivanka set up her own private email server in Jared's house, nor has she used it exclusively.

    Hillary was found to have sent 65 emails on topics deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret" but that all of them contained material that was particularly sensitive because the content of the emails discussed things that were at the time of writing available in the public domain, i.e. newspapers and it's kind of dumb to fault somebody for discussing secret things in non-secure emails that are already being discussed in newspapers. Some emails were also classified retroactively. Additionally several FBI investigations found that there was no cause for any kind of prosecution. Basically the whole Clinton emails scandal was a gigantic shitstorm over nothing. Having said that both Hillary Clinton and Ivanka Trump should use secure mail servers for all of their government related communications and particularly things like travel schedules and details about where they are planning to lodge since both of their privately operated servers seem to have been out of date and easy to hack. This could potentially be a problem for all kinds of reasons since obtaining advance details about travel plans and lodgings would be useful to anybody from assassins and terrorists to foreign intelligence services intent on gathering signals intelligence, i.e. planning to bug whatever apartments Ivanka is are staying at. I'm pretty sure that some of her shop-talk with both her husband and her father would be pretty interesting to any of a number of intelligence agencies listing in. Then there is simply the colossal hypocrisy of the whole thing due to the gigantic stink Ivanka's father raised over Hillary's e-mails.

  61. Thankfully .. the standard has already set low by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

    Thank you, Hillary, for setting such a low standard and then getting away with it. It would be very hypocritical for Democrats to try to do anything about it now since they were so against doing anything about it when Hillary did it.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  62. Re:LOL by mark_reh · · Score: 1, Troll

    Spoken like a typically ignorant American who has never been outside the US. You got yours, so everything is right with the world...

    We (?, Russia?) elected a government full of old white guys who think it's just fabulous to take children away from their parents for the horrible crime of trying to get away from violence in their own countries. These same old white guys think it's OK to undo decades of protections from industrial pollution. Oh, yes, and because our rich folks (more old white guys, mostly) aren't rich enough, they should get tax breaks, even as the roads, bridges, and airports that helped them become so rich are falling apart because there isn't enough tax revenue to pay for maintenance and repairs. These old white guys who run things have convinced a large portion of the poorly educated population (no tax revenues for schools) that "truth isn't truth" and facts don't matter. These same old white guys think that a health care system designed to bankrupt people who happen to get sick or injured is a great idea.

    Unfortunately, those old white guys, through their tax cuts and gerrymandering of election districts, have managed to perpetuate their rule by guaranteeing that the general population gets dumber every year. They've put a moron/maniac in charge who thinks that decades of work to prevent world wide conflict was all wasted and our friends are now enemies and our enemies now friends.

    So yes, it is embarrassing to be American. I want people in other countries who read this to know that we aren't all as insane/stupid as your news programs must make us look. One day the pendulum will swing back the other way despite the GOPs attempts to tie it off to their side. Hopefully we'll be able to undo the damage that Trump has already and will continue to inflict on the US and the rest of the world.

  63. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You missed the double speak. Just because someone did something before X, does not mean they stopped doing so after X.

    Anyone not still changing "lock her up" #ButHerEmails is a hypocrite. They were idiots before.. And probably hypocrites then too, but even more so now.

    I'm sure Baron, who is great with the cyber, will resolve any complaints. Otherwise the rest of them are all grifters. Maybe Tiffany is excluded too, as the apparent pariah if that family she might not be trusted enough by the adults to be guilty.
    Also.
    #PrettyPutinInPink
    Can't that country afford a shirt for their leader yet?

  64. More Willfull Democratic Dumbfuckery by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    The FBI found 3 Clinton emails with possibly sensitive info in the, not "thousands of classified" ones.

    One of the more pernicious lies from Democrats on this issue is that the emails weren't marked as classified so Hillary's server was A-Okay. Which is total Nazi bullshit, as much of those conversations would have been inherently classified. If Hillary received an email from the ambassador to India on the state of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, that email didn't have to be stamped as "classified" for it to be considered as such. Which Hillary would have known, as she was given special training as an Original Classification Authority.

    If the USG manages to get Edward Snowden in a snatch-and-grab, I hope he argues in court that his actions were A-Okay because none of the documents he leaked had a big Classified header when he copied them. If only so we can watch Hillbots go on trying to rationalize her incompetent bullshit.

  65. Re:Better question by Tsolias · · Score: 1

    as a troubled mind once said
    "Dismantling meritocracy is a step in the direction of both dismantling the patriarchy and the system of white supremacy."
    So, it seems that Trump is very progressive. He is beating white supremacy and patriarchy by battling meritocracy... and what a greater example of battling meritocracy, when you apply nepotism, either with family, friends, comrades, e.t.c.

  66. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoop by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Polonium Deez nutz.

  67. reminiscent? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Ivanka's practices are reminiscent of the personal email account Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state.

    Oh?

    "Ms. Trump did not create a private server in her house or office, no classified information was ever included, the account was never transferred at Trump Organization, and no emails were ever deleted," Mirijanian said.

    Oh. So except for being different in every key particular, especially the classified information, it was reminiscent. I see.

    1. Re:reminiscent? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      You know how I know you don't know what 'reminiscent' means?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  68. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoop by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Republic is the opposite of monarchy, not of democracy.

  69. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by brickhouse98 · · Score: 1

    People like you will just handwave away anything and make any kind of justification you can right? I have no idea why anyone feels the need to defend Trump or his family sooooooo much. It's as if an attack on them is an attack on you personally. It's quite pathetic.

  70. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by jittles · · Score: 1

    Ivanka Trump is a Senior Adviser to the President,

    Which happened after her emails from a private server, at least according to Newsweek.

    Ivanka Trump is a Senior Adviser to the President, which is an official government position. Complete with all of us sending her a paycheck.

    Still a complete horseshit equivalency - even if she's been using private email since joining the White House staff. She's not an Original Classification Authority, the way Hillary was, trading in the highest levels of classified information as a part of her job. Nor has Ivanka set up her own private email server in Jared's house, nor has she used it exclusively.

    Which means that Hillary was able to declassify information related to the State Department and Ivanka is not able to declassify anything. What has that got to do with anything? If anything, that means that Hillary was less likely to run afoul of the law. Hillary should have gone to prison because her mail server contained classified material. Ivanka should go to prison because she specifically engaged in this activity AFTER a federal law was passed prohibiting it. Ignorance of the law is no justification for its violation. They should have warned her earlier. And she was a de facto senior advisor to the president even before she was officially given the title. She had an office in the white house, whether she was officially titled as an advisor or not she was, for all intents and purposes, a government official. She had to be to have an office in the white house.

  71. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by laffer1 · · Score: 1

    There isn't much of a difference! In both cases, microsoft software was used. In both cases, sys admins had access to the email that did not have appropriate background checks, etc.

    Whether the server is in the basement or in a data center, it's equally hackable.

  72. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by jittles · · Score: 2

    About her use of e-mail:

    After advising her father in an unofficial capacity for the first two months of his administration, she was appointed Advisor to the President, a government employee, on March 29, 2017. She takes no salary.[3] Prior to becoming a federal employee, she used a personal email for government work.

    In other words, her e-mails were not an issue because she was not yet a Federal employee. But let's go ahead and consider that equivalent to the Secretary of State running a private server in her bathroom, and passing thousands of classified and Top Secret e-mails through it. By all means, show your hypocrisy!

    She had an office in the white house during that time. She was a government official whether the administration considered her to be one or not.

  73. Re:Unethical, not illegal by jbengt · · Score: 1

    And you know this because Ivanka said so?

  74. Re:LOL by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

    Or, you could recognize that "plummeting" is hyperbole, as a US passport is good for travel to just one less country than the "best" passport, which is Singapore.

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  75. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by jbengt · · Score: 1

    It is an issue because of the Federal Records Act.

  76. Re:The censored portion between the front page... by jbengt · · Score: 1

    . . . no classified information was ever included, the account was never transferred at Trump Organization, and no emails were ever deleted," Mirijanian said.

    They say that they preserved all government related e-mails and handed them over for records and only kept or deleted private e-mails, and that none of them were classified. But we don't know, since we have only their word, so we should lock her up. (see how that goes?)

  77. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    you are one triggered snowflake. Why can't trumptards be consistent for a split second? hillary can burn in hell for all I care, but to be outraged about her usage of a private e-mail server, and then to immediately downplay ivanka's? you're making my job too easy; i don't have to do any work at all to point out your hypocrisy. it's always feels > reals from your corner though. the trumps don't give a flying fuck about keeping classified info safe. don't forget that trump is using an unsecured phone that is almost certainly being listened to https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1... . fuck off with that kys bullshit, you're a degenerate coward.

    Let's not forget that Trump literally gave classified information directly to the Russians.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/trump-intel-slip

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  78. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Billy boy's not the one who publicly admitted to wanting to breed with his own daughter pal. That was Donnie.

  79. Re:Bogus headline by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

    I'm planning a Kickstarter campaign to buy the Republicans a spine.

  80. Re:Double standard? by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1

    If Hillary can delete over 30k emails with bleachbit while under subpoena and have zero negative consequences ...

    There were consequences. She didn't get the job she wanted - President. Instead she's been permanently demoted to hideous whiner.

  81. As long as she wiped it by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Just as long as she wiped it afterward with a cloth.

  82. Re:LOL by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

    a humongous house in a suburb (so big that some people get jealous of them and call them McMansions)

    You think jealousy is why people call them that? Personally speaking, I would never want to live in such a place, even if you gave it to me for free.

    The name is more because so many of them are more or less interchangeable, built to the same generic aesthetic, akin to a generic burger being rolled out. Combine that with neighborhoods that have poor walkability and no character, and I'll take a hard pass, thanks. I much prefer my 1920s era bungalow in town. 1200 square feet is more than enough space for our little family of four.

    Obviously, there are a large number of people who feel differently than me, but I'll never be neighbors with them. *shrug*

  83. Re:Hypocrisy by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    And Hillary Clinton had classified information on her personal computer and Huma Abedin's laptop in violation of the Espionage Act which is a felony.

    The only reason Clinton is not indicated and convicted is because Comey prevented that from happening.

    FYI Clinton did not have approval from the State Department to use her personal email server. Clinton lied when she said she did.

    Keep pretending the two are the same.

  84. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by rworne · · Score: 1

    I am a rabbit. My mother and father were rabbits...

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  85. Re:Better question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Clinton joked about 2 for 1. I seriously doubt that Hillary ever went full on foot stamping princess like Ivanka did. Hillary was a lawyer that graduated top of her class at Yale. Hillary had been involved in world class work as well as personally produced world class work in fields of law and child health. Hillary had been a law professor. Hillary had served as advisor for other people's (not her husband) political campaigns and administrations. The list of Hillary accomplishments goes on. Ivanka started a jewelry store that attempted to cash in on the Trump name after the presidency (illegal as hell) until it was shut down. Ivanka also got jobs on some of daddy's tv shows.

    To attempt to compare the foot stamping princess to the hugely experienced, impressive and capable law professor is just plain brain dead.

  86. Re:Bogus headline by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's clear that Trump has no decency, but shouldn't some other republicans stand up? It seems they are quite happy to walk down the nature trail to hell (road to authoritarian rule).

    And this is where the republican party has lost me for the rest of my life. Until the current crop is dead and gone, there's nothing that is going to bring me back.

    The lack of spine and decency is appalling. If you can't put country over party, that's unforgivable in my book. And other than one or two republicans, the entire party is doing that.

    What's mindblowing to me is that it's only for very, very short-term gain. Long-term, the republican party is dead demographically. Check out the op-ed from the former vice chair of the CA republican party: Why One Prominent California Republican Has Declared The GOP Dead In Her State. That's the first domino, and it won't take too many more to make the republican party nothing more than a disruptive minority.

    The US already slipped below 50% of the babies being born white. There's no path forward for the republican party relying as they have on on toxic racism (and sexism) to secure their base. "There are very fine people on both sides" doesn't play well in the non-white demographics that are soon going to be a majority in the US. If the republicans can't purge and pivot in time for the next generation to see value in their platform, they are done. At the moment, they're making a lot more lifelong democrats than they are making lifelong republicans.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  87. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    I never once mentioned anyone else or compared severity to anyone else. Besides that you are advancing a lie. She absolutely did so while operating as a US official. You idiots keep telling lies to yourselves repeatedly in the hopes that it will become the truth. You are in for many disappointments.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  88. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    Please give me a couple of links to the facts you supposedly have.

    "I don't think Ivanka would do that inside the magazine [pose for Playboy] although she does have a very nice figure. I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter perhaps I'd be dating her."

    More: https://www.elitedaily.com/p/9...

    Oh yeah, and this:

    https://www.cheatsheet.com/wp-...

  89. Also: Intelligence does not mean tech. knowledge. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    You said, "Hilary is very, very intelligent."

    Please give an example of Hillary Clinton being intelligent. She handled the 2012 Benghazi attack in an extremely weak manner. People pretended she was responsible, but the head of an organization doesn't know everything that happens in an organization, and is not responsible for everything lower-level people do.

    Also, intelligence does not mean knowledge of technology. What benefit would anyone think would come to her for installing a private server?

  90. Except for this it is exactly like Clinton.... by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

    "Ms. Trump did not create a private server in her house or office, no classified information was ever included, the account was never transferred at Trump Organization, and no emails were ever deleted,"

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  91. Seriously? by bblb · · Score: 2

    This is "reminiscent of the personal email account Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state"...? Is that a joke? Ivanka holds no office and has no access to secure intelligence or classified operational data whereas Hillary compromised national security through the use of her personal server. Using a private mail server is nothing new, it's been done by officials of all types for decades... the transgressive distinction with Hillary's mail is not that she used a private server but what data she passed through that private server.

  92. Re:LOL by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

    I realize that it's tradition here to ignore citations, but if you'd read the link I provided you will see that the US is actually ahead of the UK (by a whopping one country). We're talking about distinctions so small that normal people don't give a rats ass about them (which of course is why that when it comes to a political argument, these small distinctions are magnified by orders of magnitude and we get words like "plummeting.")

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  93. So what? by zkiwi34 · · Score: 1

    Why is this even noteworthy?
    If Ms Clinton can do the email thing so epically and deliberately wrong, with classified etc info flying about with nairy a care, then this Trump spawnâ(TM)s acts arenâ(TM)t worth much more time than it took to make this comment.

  94. Re: LOL by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    A lot of people are jealous, yes.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  95. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    So you're just going to ignore the "if Ivanka weren't my daughter" part, and say he wants to breed with his daughter?

    Un-huh. That is a special kind of stupid.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  96. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    As long as you don't forget that it was already public knowledge, and that Trump is literally the person that gets to decide what is and is not classified.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  97. Re:Bogus headline by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    What's mindblowing to me is that it's only for very, very short-term gain. Long-term, the republican party is dead demographically

    I hear that, but it discounts how quickly parties can pivot.
    Furthermore, it discounts how religious and conservative a lot of latino immigrants actually are. If repubs ever manage to convince them that they aren't racist, they easily could become repub voters.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  98. Re:LOL by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Spoken like a typically ignorant American who has never been outside the US. You got yours, so everything is right with the world...

    I've been to more countries than you, spent more time outside the US than you, and speak more languages than you. Unfortunately, you are an ignoramus.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  99. Re: let the apologists start jumping through hoop by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, in America, we had an election where the Election Supervisor couldn't even tell a judge how many ballots had been cast several days after the election.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  100. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    Any man that ISN'T a complete chauvinist, would never say something like this about his daughter. BTW, he didn't say he'd marry her, just date her. To me that signifies sex only. I'd cringe all the same had he said, "Yeah man, I'd eat that pussy, if she wasn't my daughter."

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  101. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by fropenn · · Score: 2

    "If she's not a federal employee why is she doing government work?"

    Good point. It usually works the other way around (government employees not doing any work). If we only had more government workers like her, our budget problems would be solved!

  102. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by Lil'wombat · · Score: 2

    And that folks is why we know there are no secret aliens. If Trump had access to that information he's spill it in a heartbeat

    --

    Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another

  103. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    So you're just going to ignore the "if Ivanka weren't my daughter" part, and say he wants to breed with his daughter?

    The contortions you Trump apologists twist yourself into to explain away the behaviours of your Dear Leader never cease to amaze me.

    Trump is creepy AF when it comes to how he talks about Ivanka, how he finds her sexy, and how he'd date her if she wasn't his daughter.

    No normal father talks that way about his daughter.

    Do you HONESTLY expect me to believe that if Obama said:

    I've said if Sasha weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her. Isn't that terrible? How terrible? Is that terrible?

    Yeah, Sasha's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father...

    You'd be completely fine with it?

  104. Re: BeauHD should commit suicide by kenh · · Score: 1

    Domain = server? My local church has a google account with a private domain name, does that mean they have their own server? No, of course not.

    Ivanka had a private email account with a private domain name, and during the transition period occasionally used private email to discuss her personal schedule for a short period of time (handful of months).

    Hillary hired a consultant, bought hardware and software, and refused to EVER login to her official email account, conducting her official duties via her server for 4 years, then took 2 years to turn over selected work emails to the government, avoiding all oversight, retention, and FOIA requests.

    Seems about equal.

    --
    Ken
  105. Being smart doesn't mean being charismatic by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Donald Trump is dumb as a blade of grass, but he's tremendously charismatic. Trump could have gotten away with Benghzi. He'd have said the same things, done the same things, and none of it would stick. Keep in mind Trump called getting an STD from sleeping around his Vietnam and got out of the war by claiming bone spurs while playing sports. Nothing sticks to him because he's got Charisma.

    Point is, intelligence is not the same thing as Charisma.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  106. Re:Bogus headline by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, it discounts how religious and conservative a lot of latino immigrants actually are.

    That's largely a myth, as far as I can tell. They are culturally religious, not evangelical, and generally not that conservative. I once thought this way too, but more and more I'm finding that it seems to be more of a stereotype than reality. If you come from a poor, sparsely educated country, you tend to be conservative and religious. But once you get some education and some wealth, that tends to get cured fast.

    Religion doesn't mean shit when it comes to politics if one party has historically shit on your culture. Non-white voters are solidly ~70% democratic voters at the moment. And if you look at latinos, they're more religious than whites, but less religious than African-Americans. Not exactly good news if republicans think that somehow religious latinos will save them.

    Not that republicans can have any claim of being righteous, either. Their entire platform is essentially being the antichrist. It's actually mindblowing how many religious folks can map the republican platform onto their religion, when they two couldn't be further apart.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  107. Re: "I'm the first daughter" - ivanka in a nutshel by beckett · · Score: 1

    The title âoeFearâ was from a direct quote from Trump with regards how he motivates people. Your criticisms are fair as they are in fact for Trumpâ(TM)s conduct and approach to governance and management.

  108. Re: Bogus headline by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Probably what will ultimately happen is the parties will figure out a way to rebalance their platforms and still win about half the votes, the way they have always done.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  109. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Which means that Hillary was able to declassify information related to the State Department and Ivanka is not able to declassify anything.

    1) Hillary saying she declassified the information so it was okay files in the face of her excuse that it was okay because the emails weren't marked classified at the time. Which was a big bald-faced lie that she and her supporters made because much of that information is inherently classified. If the SoS receives an email from the ambassador to India on the state of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, that email doesn't have to be stamped by some flunky as "classified" for it to be treated as such.

    2) Are you arguing that she wasn't mishandling classified information, because the act of mishandling it made it declassified? David Petraus, who was prosecuted for sharing state secrets with his mistress, would be fascinated by your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    What has that got to do with anything?

    It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Partisan hacks are making ass clowns out of themselves by comparing Ivananka using private email for a month to Hillary mishandling classified information on her home server for years.

    Ivanka should go to prison because she specifically engaged in this activity AFTER a federal law was passed prohibiting it.

    Uh huh. If you want to make that argument, knock yourself out. But don't pretend it's in the same universe as Hillary's email server. You wouldn't want to make an ass clown out of yourself, would you?

  110. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    People like you will just handwave away anything and make any kind of justification you can right? I have no idea why anyone feels the need to defend Trump or his family sooooooo much. It's as if an attack on them is an attack on you personally. It's quite pathetic.

    I have no idea why some people think that calling out deranged BS targeted at X means you are an X supporter. If you told a Birther that he was an idiot for claiming Obama's parents planted a fake birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper because they knew 45 years in advance that he might run for president, does that mean you were a big fan of his drone strikes on children?

    And yes, comparing Ivanka using a private email account for a month to Hillary mishandling classified information for years on an unsecured, unauthorized server is utterly deranged.

  111. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    I came here to see what kind of phenomenally stupid weaseling a Trumptard might use to try to say that nothing wrong was done by Ivanka.

    Having a functional bullshit detector - and comparing Ivanka using a private email account for a month to Hillary mishandling classified information for years on a private email server is complete and utter bullshit - doesn't make one a Trump supporter. Not anymore than you calling BS on the Birthers meant you loved Obama's drone strikes on children.

    So take this drooling rant about unthinking partisan hacks to the nearest mirror, where it belongs.

  112. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    I never mentioned Hillary you fucking idiot. But since you did, what she did is far worse than what Hillary did, because she didn't know it was wrong and didn't run on a campaign based in large part on saying how wrong it was. Off you go now fucktard ...

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  113. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Hillary was found to have sent 65 emails on topics deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret" but that all of them contained material that was particularly sensitive because the content of the emails discussed things that were at the time of writing available in the public domain, i.e. newspapers and it's kind of dumb to fault somebody for discussing secret things in non-secure emails that are already being discussed in newspapers. Some emails were also classified retroactively.

    That excuse from Democratic partisans contains more dishonesty than an entire years worth of Trump speeches and tweets, as much of that email correspondence would have been inherently classified. If Hillary sent or received an email from the ambassador to South Korea on the status of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, it didn't have to be stamped "classified" to be treated as such. As one of a few Original Classification Authorities, Hillary received special training on this and knows full well that the "they weren't marked classified" was pure sophistry and misdirection.

    If the United States manages a snatch-and-grab on Snowden, I hope his defense team goes on network news to claim with a straight face that his actions were OK because the copies of documents he took didn't have a nice red 'classified' stamp on the front.

    Additionally several FBI investigations found that there was no cause for any kind of prosecution.

    Which was an additional pantload. Comey stated her actions were illegal but wasn't going to press charges because she didn't intend to mishandle classified information. It's a pantload because the government DGAF about your intent, only whether or not you did it. The contemporary case of Kristian Saucier puts this lie to bed - a sailor who served a year in prison, after being prosecuted by the DOJ for taking unauthorized selfies on his unsecured cell phone while on a sub. Even though the DOJ agreed he showed no intent in his actions.

    If Hillary Clinton were Hillary Johnson, she would have been serving an effective life sentence for mishandling far larger amounts of far more classified information on her unsecured, unauthorized server. With another decade on top for obstruction of justice - deleting evidence while under active FBI investigation.

  114. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by jittles · · Score: 1

    Which means that Hillary was able to declassify information related to the State Department and Ivanka is not able to declassify anything.

    1) Hillary saying she declassified the information so it was okay files in the face of her excuse that it was okay because the emails weren't marked classified at the time. Which was a big bald-faced lie that she and her supporters made because much of that information is inherently classified. If the SoS receives an email from the ambassador to India on the state of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, that email doesn't have to be stamped by some flunky as "classified" for it to be treated as such.

    I am not saying that Hillary was justified in any of the things she did. But she certainly had the power and authority to deem things unclassified and Ivanka does not. This means that if Ivanka did anything that might remotely be classified she's got absolutely no excuse whatsoever for having engaged in the act. Hillary potentially had wiggle room that Ivanka cannot possibly have. So your argument makes zero sense and that is why I am saying it has nothing to do with anything in this comparison. You're being a partisan hack making an assclown out of yourself trying to justify Ivanka's violation of the law by saying that it is somehow better than Hillary's violation of the law.

    And since you appear to be particularly obtuse let me make it clear to you: Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server was not a direct violation of the law when she did it. It was only a violation of the law if (and we all know it did) it had improperly handled classified information. After Hillary did this, the federal government passed a law making it explicitly illegal to do exactly what Ivanka did regardless of the content of the emails. Is clear enough for you or do I need to try to dumb it down to preschool vocabulary so that you can actually comprehend what is going on instead of trying to make excuses. Hillary and Ivanka have both violated the law and ought to be on probation with their civil rights removed at the very least. I would prefer that they both be in federal prison, where they belong.

    2) Are you arguing that she wasn't mishandling classified information, because the act of mishandling it made it declassified? David Petraus, who was prosecuted for sharing state secrets with his mistress, would be fascinated by your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    Where did you get this foolish idea that I was trying to argue anything in favor of Hillary? All I stated was that Hillary had more discretion of classified material than Ivanka ever has. I then indicated what laws were enforceable at the time that each of them mishandled emails. You are bat shit insane.

    What has that got to do with anything?

    It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Partisan hacks are making ass clowns out of themselves by comparing Ivananka using private email for a month to Hillary mishandling classified information on her home server for years.

    Ivanka should go to prison because she specifically engaged in this activity AFTER a federal law was passed prohibiting it.

    Uh huh. If you want to make that argument, knock yourself out. But don't pretend it's in the same universe as Hillary's email server. You wouldn't want to make an ass clown out of yourself, would you?

    Why would I pretend that Ivanka's use of private email is in the same universe as Hillary Clintons? They are not comparable, as I've mentioned because one's use was explicitly a crime and the other's was not, in and of itself, a crime. Therefore the only person trying to make any sort of comparison between the two is you. And why are you doing that? Because you're a partisan assclown, just as you're accusing me of being. I don't like either one of those jackasses. But we can all see that you had to climb up from your spot under Trump's desk to take a moment to shill on his behalf. I hope he was kind enough to buy you a pair of knee pads.

  115. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    But she certainly had the power and authority to deem things unclassified and Ivanka does not.

    So Petraus should be given his job back at the CIA? You're sidestepping both 1) and 2). This whole declassification tangent - which would be news to Hillary and her circle as she's never claimed to have declassified those emails - is a red herring anyway. Just as much her emails were inherently classified, using an unsecured unauthorized server was inherently mishandling classified information. Her network administrator didn't even have a security clearance FFS.

    You're being a partisan hack making an assclown out of yourself

    I'm a socialist that would see every living president, CIA or State Department official in the Hague for war crimes, so good luck trying to fuck that chicken. It's called having a functioning bullshit detector, and objecting to bullshit no matter who the target is or who's dishing it out. Try it some time.

    Ivanka's violation of the law by saying that it is somehow better than Hillary's violation of the law

    But of course it is. Undeniably and indisputably so. By equating one month of private email use in a non-classified position to years of a private email server and highly classified information, you're only insulting your own intelligence here. This is as absurd as complaining that petty vandalism is being treated as a less serious issue than a prolific serial killer.

    They are not comparable, as I've mentioned because one's use was explicitly a crime and the other's was not, in and of itself, a crime. Therefore the only person trying to make any sort of comparison between the two is you.

    Willfully obtuse much? Equating the two is the entire purpose of this "story". And you keep comparing the two while you're protesting that the two aren't comparable. Let's cut to the chase here and use the same scenario but with a couple of name and date substitutions. Say it was Republicans freaking out at the news that Michelle Obama used a private email account for. one. god. damned. month. for White House affairs in 2009 before getting a government email address. You and every other person wearing holes in Ivanka's fainting couch would be laughing them out of the room.

    For.
    One.
    God.
    Damned.
    Month.

    If this was all a big scheme for Ivanka to do government business on a private email account to avoid prying eyes, it was as piss poor a plan as Putin being crafty enough to get a WWE character elected president but yet so stupid that he couldn't anticipate any blowback.

  116. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    I never mentioned Hillary you fucking idiot.

    Hillary is the only reason this is a story and anyone is having a conversation here - shit for brains. Hillary is all three legs of a three legged stool.

    But since you did, what she did is far worse than what Hillary did, because she didn't know it was wrong and didn't run on a campaign based in large part on saying how wrong it was.

    A single month of a private account in a non-classified position is "far worse" than years of a private server dealing with highly classified information? Way to make an ass clown out of yourself, bucko. And of cooooooourse Hillary knew what she was doing was wrong AF. Not only was she was given extra training as a top official on the need for security, she blasted the Bush Administration for its use of private email accounts a mere two years before starting her own private server. So watch this and get a vasectomy before you contaminate the gene pool.

  117. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Obviously you are sexually frustrated knowing that you'll never get the chance to suckle on Trump's tiny eleventh finger.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  118. Re:I guess everyone forgot - by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    I would see Trump in the Hague next to Obama for war crimes, so good luck with your projection. Anymore dipshittery? No more arguing that an unpaid federal position using a private account for one. god. damned. month. is a more serious issue than one of the top cabinet posts doing so for years?

  119. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Again, Ivanka is far, far worse. ... and you are one phenomenally stupid motherfucker for being too stupid to understand why.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  120. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    So at this point you're just engaging in willful dumbfuckery, taken to 11. Because that's what it takes to pretend one. goddamned. month. of non-classified work is "far, far worse" than years of correspondence at the highest levels of classified information.

  121. Re: I guess everyone forgot - by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    You are a fucking idiot. Hillary did what she did before the new rules and didn't realize she was wrong. Trump's girlfriend knew what she was doing was wrong, and quite *hypocritically* called for Hillary to go to jail for unknowingly doing what Ivanka subsequently did quite knowingly. Wipe the drool of your keyboard dumbfuck.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun