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.
"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.
Seems reasonable
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.
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.
"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!
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.
It must be so embarrassing to be American right now
It's really not.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Ivanka’s personal email is being hosted on a server running in Hillary Clinton’s basement.
#DeleteChrome
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.
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.
Last I checked you cannot resign being the presidents dauther.
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/
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.
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.
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.
You can resign from your position of "Senior Advisor to the President", which is an actual job in the White House.
Nepotism, plain and simple.
...
Except she has that job. She's currently receiving a paycheck for it, which she signs over to the Treasury.
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
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!
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.
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).
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."
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!
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?
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."
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.
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.
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/
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/
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.
Ivanka didn't:
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.
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!
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.
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?
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?
Which happened after her emails from a private server, at least according to Newsweek.
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.
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.
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
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..."
Which happened after her emails from a private server, at least according to Newsweek.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
> 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?
" 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.
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
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.
"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!
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