Democrats Intend To Probe Ivanka Trump's Use of Personal Email In Next Congress (go.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Amid reports that first daughter and White House senior advisor Ivanka Trump exchanged hundreds of official government business emails using a personal email account, top Democrats on Capitol Hill "want to know if Ivanka complied with the law" and in the next Congress plan to continue their investigation of the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act. Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat who's in line to become the next chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee next year, promises any potential investigation into Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's emails won't be like the "spectacle" Republicans led in the Clinton email probe.

The Oversight committee has jurisdiction over records and transparency laws, and Cummings helped write an update to the Presidential and Federal Records Acts that was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2014. That measure mandates that every federal employee, including the President, forward any message about official business sent using a private account to the employee's official email account within 20 days. "We launched a bipartisan investigation last year into White House officials' use of private email accounts for official business, but the White House never gave us the information we requested," Cummings, D-Md., noted. "We need those documents to ensure that Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and other officials are complying with federal records laws and there is a complete record of the activities of this Administration. My goal is to prevent this from happening again -- not to turn this into a spectacle the way Republicans went after Hillary Clinton. My main priority as Chairman will be to focus on the issues that impact Americans in their everyday lives."

Comments

Re:Fair is fair

[nwaack]

Yep. She should take one for the team and say that she'll go to jail as long as Hilary goes first.

ORANGE MAN BAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it at least 1/3rd of the stories on this site are basically just ORANGE MAN BAD. It's fucking exhausting.

Re:ORANGE MAN BAD

[Locke2005]

So your solution is "Stop reminding me that the orange man is bad!" rather than "Can't the orange man STOP being bad?"

Re:ORANGE MAN BAD

[shilly]

Because the orange man keeps on doing so much bad stuff. The floods of bad stuff are so gigantic that Slashdot barely covers any of it, and yet it still dominates the feed.

Re: ORANGE MAN BAD

[PopeRatzo]

Why do you believe that? Objectively why?

Well, let's start out with the most recent: Just a few hours ago, Donald Trump voiced his full & unwavering support for a Saudi leader who had a legal United States resident murdered, cut into pieces and his bones dissolved in acid. And this is a day after the story broke that his administration tried to help the Saudi leader cover up the murder and gave him advice on how to deflect the blame onto someone else. I'm pretty sure that on the morality scale, that falls somewhere South of "good"

We can work backwards from there, but it might take a while because it's a very long list.

Re:Fair is fair

[CanHasDIY]

Agreed - the only legitimate way to reconcile this is for both parties to admit to manipulating the system for their own gain, and to the detriment of the American People.

Was anything classified?

[Sniper98G]

Everyone keeps comparing this to what Hillary did. Not sure why.

She was using a non-government account for government business. Hillary set us her own email sever in an unoccupied house and transferred classified information on to it.

These things are not comparable.

Re:Fair is fair

[fluffernutter]

I don't think either is a big deal, but as for the FBI each situation may be different so they should investigate both. They didn't find an issue with Clinton's use, but that doesn't mean the Ivanka scenario is the same.

Re:Before everyone goes crazy again...

[DaHat]

Usually, any criminal statutes require knowledge and intent of the crime being committed.

Usually... yes, however the statutes Hillary violated has no mens rea requirement: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

So nice of you to try to move the goal posts.

What's next? Screams of "but they weren't classified at the time"?

Re:Fair is fair

[DNS-and-BIND]

As long as the FBI follows the same procedure as with Hillary:

1. An exoneration letter is drafted in advance.
2. Immunity is given to top Trump aides (and they're allowed to sit in on the interview).
3. The interview isn't recorded.
4. The lead official doesn't attend.
5. The #2 official's family has received large donations from Trump's political friends.
6. Prior to the interview, the lead official meets privately on plane tarmac with Trump's wife (to discuss grandchildren).
7. Main interviewer has expressed disdain for Trump's opponents, such as discussing an "insurance plan" with higher-ups to undermine them. If the same terms aren't offered...Was Clinton's interview process unfair?
8. As long as they believe Ivanka didn't intend any harm, she's let off the hook for any violations.
9. If Ivanka becomes a target, it should be referred to as a "matter" not an investigation.
10. Trump aides should be permitted to destroy subpoenaed or relevant public records and wipe relevant servers with a cloth or something.