Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues To Use' Private Messaging For White House Business, Top Democrat Says (thedailybeast.com)

Freshly Exhumed writes: Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has revealed that senior White House advisor Jared Kushner's lawyer admitted in December that his client "continues to use" WhatsApp to conduct official White House business. The chairman also said that a lawyer for Ivanka Trump and Mr. Kushner told the committee late last year that they additionally used private email accounts for official White House business in a way that may have violated federal records laws. Mr Kushner's lawyer, Abbe Lowell could not say whether his client used WhatsApp to share classified information. Regardless, Cummings says the communications raise questions about whether Kushner and other officials violated the Presidential Records Act, which requires the president and his staff "take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records." As for Ivanka's use of a personal email account to conduct official business, her lawyer says she sent the emails before she was briefed on the rules.

If you're not familiar with WhatsApp, here's what you should know about it: "As of January 2019, more than 1.5 billion users in over 180 countries use WhatsApp, created in 2009 as an alternative to text messaging," reports USA Today. "Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014 to make a bigger play in the rapidly-growing messaging market, along with its own Messenger platform, which also boasts 1.5 billion users." The service features end-to-end encryption, meaning the sender and recipient are the only ones who can view the messages.

Comments

Re: Who CARES!?

[subie]

Better yet why is this story running when the Mueller investigation has completed? Even as a Democrat I find slashdot so anti Trump they can't post a far more important story?

LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, I'm a lifelong libertarian voting republican in certain races since I first reached 18. In 2016, I voted AGAINST Hillary because I believe the democratic party, due to their demographics, will be the first to outlaw the most sacred amendment, Freedom of Speech. I still feel that way.

All that said. Trump and Co needed to go and yesterday. We need to purge the Party before Country folks in the Republican party before they ship the sink with them.

Fuck Pelosi. Fuck Trump. Fuck McConnell. Get the old rotten blood all out.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Joce640k]

Hello, I'm a lifelong libertarian voting republican in certain races since I first reached 18. In 2016, I voted AGAINST Hillary because I believe the democratic party, due to their demographics, will be the first to outlaw the most sacred amendment, Freedom of Speech. I still feel that way.

All that said. Trump and Co needed to go and yesterday. We need to purge the Party before Country folks in the Republican party before they ship the sink with them.

Fuck Pelosi. Fuck Trump. Fuck McConnell. Get the old rotten blood all out.

Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.

Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.

In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.

Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

They're already working hard on it, but it's bipartisan:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/new-israel-anti-boycott-act-still-unconstitutional

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how they treat Trump and Hillary (or any democrat) so differently.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unconstitutional because .... the first amendment protectspersonal speech. Defunding anti-Semitism act is regulating governmental racism. See the difference?

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is the system that given two choices picks the one least able to effectively lead the country and make things better for people, mostly because of innuendo and bullshit.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-Israel = Anti-Semitism

Lol

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[aardvarkjoe]

You're focusing on the wrong thing. The "system" resulted in the two worst major-party candidates in at least modern history being nominated, and yet your complaint is that the wrong dreadful candidate got elected?

If you fix your party and nominate a real candidate, then we won't have this problem in the first place.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

If we had ranked choice or approval voting, then we could vote 3rd party without helping an opposing ideology. You shouldn't have to feel the need to be voting *against* someone.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

due to their demographics, will be the first to outlaw the most sacred amendment, Freedom of Speech.

I really don't understand the Americans' blind devotion to totally unrestricted "freedom of speech". They fail to realize that there are, sometimes, legitimate reasons to shut their mouth. eg when they clash with other constitutional rights (or human rights) or when it is truly to the benefit of the country/society (eg top secret stuff).
And don't use as rebuttal the "slippery slope" fallacy.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[phantomfive]

the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.

Who would you have chosen instead?

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[quantaman]

Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.

Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.

In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.

Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)

Clinton was a disappointing candidate and poor campaigner, but she was not "None of the above".

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington. The only difference is her thing happened to be a charity which happens to be one of the least personally beneficial. And the charity actually seemed to be doing good work!!

And the emails, again one of those laws that everyone huffed and puffed about, but most top-level Washington people either ignored it or followed it only through convenience (ie, they used the work email because they didn't want people using their personal addresses).

That's not to say she didn't have legitimate flaws, but among candidates of the last 30 years I think Obama was the only definitively better one. Bill Clinton's charm probably made him a more effective President than she would have been but she certainly seems to be a better human being than him.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[LynnwoodRooster]

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia, including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[quantaman]

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Uhhh, you're confusing things.

Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. Obviously they did so more when she was in a position of power or potential power. But that's absolutely Washington SOP.

It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong". I mean it's pretty much standard that if you want to meet with a politician you don't have to be a donor.. but it would really help if you were.

It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

You mean the acquisition that was completely normal and uncontroversial acquisition and H. Clinton had almost nothing to do with anyway?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia,

People with international dealings having a few connections to a major country is fine. The problem with Trump is there's a ton of people with big connections to incredibly shady people.

including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

The problem with the Trump orbit meetings is:
1) A few of them seem directly related to the stolen emails.
2) Many of the Trump people in question repeatedly lied about the meetings. Either leaving them off official forms or denying they took place under oath.

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Sigh. The dossier was opposition research, not "fake". Somethings have been proven wrong, and some have been verified.

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

Campaigns do sketching things sometimes. Hell, this guy signed up a fake candidate to launch an attack campaign against his rival then drop out of the race.

Oh, and here's a fun question where I'm really interested to hear the answer.

So lets assume you're right and the dossier really was a "fake dossier".

So... what was the point?

Because it didn't come out before the election, and as you pointed out she certainly had enough friends in the media to put it out.

Hell, they could even "anonymously leak" it somewhere, yet they obviously didn't.

So why get a fake dossier to slander Trump if you don't actually release it till after you already lost the election?

I feel like you w

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[PopeRatzo]

Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.

This is a poor argument. There were more votes cast against Donald Trump than against Hillary Clinton.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

There's so much wrong with this information it reminds me of the 9/11 truth movement and antivaxxer nonsense.

The investors.com article claiming Russian ties is a hatchet job. Let's not forget this rag's editor claimed Hawking's would have died if he lived in the UK and depended on NIH (in fact he lived so long partially because of NIH). Renaissance Capital does not have Russian ties, Bob Mercer does and he has been estranged from the company and finally removed from the organization due to his ties to Brietbart. There was no connection between Bob Mercer and the donations from Renaissance to the Clinton foundation. This has been one of the highest earning most wealthy hedge funds going back years and the real man in charge is Jim Simons a long time Democrat supporter. Half million dollar speeches are normal for this company, they are rolling in many billions. Bob Mercer in fact owned Cambridge Analytics and a large part of Brietbart and was one of the largest donors to Trump. Joule Unlimited was a Roger Stone/Brietbart operation blown way out of proportions. Its the same for the rest in this story, the author even admits he didn't quote stories properly at the bottom.

The Hill article cites Peskov saying Putin preferred Trump and found Clinton to be hostile toward Russia. He said the meeting with Clinton were normal diplomatic meetings with no intent to manipulate the election. He also carefully avoided mentioning the many contacts between Team Trump and actual Russian spies.

From the factcheck on U1: "as we’ve written before, there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions. That’s still the case."

The Opensecrets article clearly states that Hillary resigned from the Clinton Foundation before she started running and after the election started a 501(c)(4) where more donations are now being funneled.

I could go on but what's the point, people here aren't looking for reasonable debate, they're looking for confirmation bias.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[ShanghaiBill]

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour.

The whole point of the foundation was to provide an entity to collect donations. Public officials should not be creating or running foundations or any other donation-collecting organizations. HRC's foundation was an inherent and intentional conflict of interest.

But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser?.

Absolutely. Political donations should go through normal channels, with standard rules and oversight. There should have been no backdoor.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.

Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.

In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.

Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)

Except that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

So most people were for her, it's just the US has an anti-democratic middle man called "the Electoral College" that got in the way. If the American system was more democratic there would be fewer problems (see also Al Gore (who I'm guessing would have handled 9/11 differently, i.e., not invade countries at great cost)).

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.

Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.

In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.

Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)

Clinton was a disappointing candidate and poor campaigner, but she was not "None of the above".

She also "won" over the people by getting the most votes:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[kenai_alpenglow]

"Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. " Also known as bribery...

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[fustakrakich]

the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.

Oh! I didn't know that we're supposed to wait for the Party to offer up the candidates from their Rolodex. From what I learned in high school, we can can petition for and nominate the candidate we want, not necessarily what the Party "offers". I believe those are the rules, should we ever decide to enforce them.

By the way, there were other candidates on the ballot. You shouldn't be so scared to take a chance.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[ShanghaiBill]

It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.

That is the point. Our government runs on sleaze, and HRC is a "normal" example of that sleaze.

So the choice was between a slimy politician and a slimy businessman. I don't know what the solution is, but our system is clearly broken if the only options were HRC and DJT.

One solution is instant-runoff voting, which was done in Maine and seems to work well. There were predictions that the voters would be too stupid to understand it, but that didn't happen in Maine.

Another (or additional) solution is open primaries. California has gone to open primaries for state, but not federal, elections. It seems to be working to elect more moderates, and weaken the power of political parties.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[fustakrakich]

:-) You're objection to the Electoral College is duly noted.

Overruled... Next...

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[ShanghaiBill]

Who would you have chosen instead?

For the 2016 presidential election:

Republican: John Kasich
Democrat: Tim Kaine

Or two candidates with similar ethics, executive experience, temperament, and political realism.

In a 3-way instant run-off, either of these guys would have easily beat HRC and DJT.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Widespread election fraud is the only reason widely despised anti-freedom candidate Hitlery Clinton "won" the popular vote.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have voted for Jill Stein, or Gary "Aleppo??? What's that???" Johnson.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the candidates openly shit on the country, wanted to import millions of violent 3rd world savages, and thinks that a man who cuts his dick off and wears a dress is magically a woman who can now go to the bathroom with your daughter.

The other didn't.

It's telling which side you're on. Your opinions are invalid by default.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[phantomfive]

Hell no on Tim Kaine, though. That guy is a snake. At least with Trump you know what you are getting.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

For a side that screams mahhhh rights so much, you sure get your panties in a twist when someone else tries to do the same.

Repubtards are stone cold hypocrites. There's nothing else to discuss.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

And like the person you are replying to said SOP for Washington potiticians. Both sides do it. Is it right? No, but we don't make those choices. The ones getting the bribes do, funny how that works.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Add trump to that list too, you can't call Hillary corrupt while also ignoring the 1000 pound elephant that is trump.

Like I said before, you repubtards are the biggest hypocrites I've ever met.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Speaking out against Israel in an attempt to get them to change their ways is protected speech.

Boycotting them is, by definition, going beyond speech in an attempt to do economic harm, to get them to change their ways. You might have an argument about freedom of association, but that is regulatable in the business realm to prevent discrimination. Women, minorities, or country of origin, these are all constitutionally acceptable reasons to ban business discrimination.

These laws prevent businesses from discriminating over many things.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Batman vs Joker.

Except that the only thing people hear is that Batman parks illegally, so they are gonna vote for this "Joker" guy. They never bother to note about how the Joker parks illegally too. Except Joker does it in a stolen car, with a dead woman in the trunk, and a pulpy red baby carriage under the tire, while shouting about how Batman thinks he is better than "people like us".

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Batman vs Joker.
Except that the only thing people hear is that Batman parks illegally, so they are gonna vote for this "Joker" guy. They never bother to note about how the Joker parks illegally too. Except Joker does it in a stolen car, with a dead woman in the trunk, and a pulpy red baby carriage under the tire, while shouting about how Batman thinks he is better than "people like us".

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

You're focusing on the wrong thing. The "system" resulted in the two worst major-party candidates in at least modern history being nominated, and yet your complaint is that the wrong dreadful candidate got elected?

I'm not sure I buy that argument. It's not an either or proposition. Definitely work towards better candidates, but at the end of the day you get to choose from the choices available.

Candidates with less history available can make baseless promises easier, since people are gullible. Looking at everything in context Hillary was a clearly better candidate with the right experience to lead, and a track record to go along with it. Well, the other guy was and is a narcissistic amoral lying sack of shit, but that is okay to a lot of people if they get what they want, which was mostly either a bully or judges. Seriously him acting like an immature bully was and is a large appeal for his base.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

So what about the more than half the people who wanted an anti-globalist president like Trump?

You people are just butthurt you lost. Trump is the rightful president, time to grow up and accept you won't always get your own way in a democracy.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

As sad as it is to say, HRC is soooo much less sleazier that what was elected.

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't even have to cut its dick off. Just needs to "identify" as a woman. Tomorrow he will identify as an obese, 3' 8", 13 yo, lesbian, Chinese, Jewish, African priest who just really loves little girls and how dare you challenge his true identity! Hater!

Re: LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies and tantrums?

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you know why you are not an american :D

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[jcr]

She wasn't corrupt,

Tell it to Haiti.

-jcr

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Joce640k]

Who would you have chosen instead?

Adam Savage.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Joce640k]

The entire "political class" is unsuitable and cannot be trusted to run a country. Their own interests will always be first.

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard

That's why trump won.

End of story right there...

Re:LOCK THEM UP

[fustakrakich]

Then don't vote for them!

Does not violate federal records laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Use of private messaging and email for government business is not illegal, and only violates federal records laws if those emails and messages are not retained per federal records retention policies, and are not made available upon lawful demand.

This is also why Hillary's email server was not illegal. She retained those emails per the RRP and turned it all over when requested.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[AmiMoJo]

It's 2019 and "but her emails" is still going strong. Is this going to be the campaign slogan for 2020?

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Then be glad that Clinton does not sit in the White House.
(Ivanka) Trump and Kushner however are there. And that is why we should pay attention to what happens there, no matter who exactly is there.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[merky1]

Not sure what the statute of limitations are, but 5 years sounds about right. And I’m not saying it is just Hillary, it’s that she is “patient 0” and we need to set a precedent that is more severe then “meh.” It would stop or at least pause morons like the Trump family.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[Midnight Thunder]

While you are likely right, it also sounds like a poor excuse on Ivanka’s part, when her father was voted in due to Hilary’s emails. Surely it would have made sense to do better than the one accused? At the same time I have read stories where the approved systems are so clunky that this invariably staff do use other methods just to be able to get work done.

Do note I am not here as a supporter of Hilary or Trump, so I am not taking sides.

Re: Does not violate federal records laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Just WAIT until you see all the ILLEGAL STUFF Hillary REALLY did. It will make all the PIDDLY illegal stuff we already know Trump and Co. have done look like PEANUTS. And I am NOT talking about the COMIC, as YOU can TELL by my ALL CAPS.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[Anonymous Coward]

She retained those emails per the RRP and turned it all over when requested.

Except for the ones she deleted of course.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[AmiMoJo]

I wish there was a statute of limitations on using Hillary Clinton to excuse bad behaviour.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[Anonymous Coward]

They have top level security clearance! Having that clearance and chatting with third party services is insanely irresponsible

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[CrimsonAvenger]

Ivanka and Jared may be pulling the same BS, but one could argue that they are not official employees.

The question is not "are they official employees", but rather "are they covered by the FOIA?"

If they're not covered by the FOIA, then they've broken no laws, unless they've discussed classified information on their private server, in which case they should be nailed to a tree for mishandling classified information.

If they ARE covered by the FOIA, then they've broken the same law Hillary did, in the same way. And should be punished in the same way Hillary was.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[dpilot]

That's a pretty bold accusation. Can you back it up?

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[Anonymous Coward]

That statute is defined by prosecution of said perpetrator. Law is defined by what is allowed without prosecution. Until then, it's a bar.

Re: Does not violate federal records laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely, FOIA and record retention laws. Hillary blatantly, deliberately violated both but that's okay because ....

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hilary's email" == Hillary Clinton's HOMEGROWN EMAIL SERVER she used to conduct U.S. Government business while she was Secretary of State for the U.S.

That server was not a convenience except it could conveniently be "burned" when the law knocked on her door. That server was a 21st century "second set of books" and it was and is a BFD.

Re: Does not violate federal records laws

[subie]

If they are making copies of emails and uploading them to the system from their private email accounts then they haven't broken any laws.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[Uberbah]

If they ARE covered by the FOIA, then they've broken the same law Hillary did

Not unless their day jobs are working with the highest levels of classified information. Not unless they hired a sysadmin without a security clearance to set it up. Not unless they deleted thousands of pieces of evidence while under active FBI investigation.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[Cmdln Daco]

There's a statute of limitations on Hillary Clinton. She's getting old. Thank goodness.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[DigressivePoser]

There's no evidence that I've ever seen that Hillary intentionally gave away or sold state secrets. But what she did do, and the evidence is clear, was to demonstrate gross negligence in the handling of classified information. That is a crime and it's a crime many people have been sentenced to jail over.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[kenai_alpenglow]

Having classified email on a "home" computer IS ILLEGAL. Subject to fines and imprisonment. Look it up. If she bothered with security briefings she would have known. Heck, if she had a *brain* she would have known. But rules/laws are for "deplorables", not her.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[kenai_alpenglow]

They're still blaming Reagan. Not as much, but still. And Bush. And Bush. And now Trump. And occasionally Nixon. And FDR (by Occasionally Coherent). And Jefferson. And George.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[kenai_alpenglow]

Sorry, they're still blaming presidents from the 1700s and early 1800s. I believe they're dead.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[AmiMoJo]

Blame is fine. "Her emails" as defence of your own shitty behaviour is not. Take responsibility.

Re: Does not violate federal records laws

[fustakrakich]

Just WAIT until you see all the ILLEGAL STUFF Hillary REALLY did.

About as likely as finding Jimmy Hoffa. These people are untouchable. They have insurance. For one to go after the other is the very definition of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary Clinton gave us Donald Trump. She will have him reelected when she picks the candidate the DNC will run in 2020. So far, looks like Biden.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[Xenographic]

> It's 2019 and "but her emails" is still going strong. Is this going to be the campaign slogan for 2020?

Well, they contain collusion with foreign spies (Steele, Deirpaksa & co.), every sort of records law evasion you could want (and intent to do so in the email with Colin Powell who explained how to get away with it, that it was against the law, and that the NSA was strongly against this), violations of handling of classified materials, quid pro quo (e.g. the "WaPo party"), among other things... but nobody's going to prosecute any of *that* so yeah, it kind of is relevant that some parties are just above the law.

But you know what? You find Trump did these things, then feel free to prosecute him. Because I'm not a filthy hypocrite like the people up thread explaining that it wasn't "really" bribery when Hillary did it, because she didn't do anything she felt was wrong.

Re:Does not violate federal records laws

[larkost]

Hiring someone is not collusion. And, from on objective standpoint she seems to have done everything required of her (making the records available), when it was required of her. She certainly should have done that earlier (e.g.: when she left office), but the actual laws were non-specific about that.

Yo mentioned Colin Powel, who absolutely broken both the spirit and letter of the law intentionally, and then don't mention that he has not been punished for this, nor that Clinton seems to have gone out of her way not to do that.

People are rightly asking that from a family that campaigned on someone not releasing records that they release their records. How can you really argue against that?

what kind of white house businesses might she have

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet that 90% of her busnesses is related to blow jobs.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Jared and Ivanka are using an encrypted platform. Hillary, on the other hand...well, he likes to screw taxpayers without protection.

Re:So?

[Joce640k]

At least Jared and Ivanka are using an encrypted platform. Hillary, on the other hand...well, he likes to screw taxpayers without protection.

If there's a virus/backdoor on any receiving device then encryption won't make a difference.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL! "HILLARY WAS USING PRIVATE E-MAIL, PUT HER IN JAIL SHE'S THE WORST CRIMINAL EVAR!!!" Trump's staff does it "Oh that's fine then, no big deal". Nothing like some good old fashioned hypocrisy to show what kinds of tools voted for Trump.

Re: Who CARES!?

[AmiMoJo]

Because people piss their pants if it's not a technology related story on Slashdot, so someone needs to find a tech angle for Mueller to get that posted. Here we have the WhatsApp/Facebook aspect.

With Mueller failing, haters need something else

[mi]

With Mueller failing to deliver any damage to the President, his haters need new stuff to throw — in the hope, something will stick...

Re:Nevermind Mueller!

[Anonymous Coward]

Were you ever able to walk while chewing gum?

Democrats are Anti-Semites

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump was sent by God to save the Jews, again.

Re:With Mueller failing, haters need something els

[Jzanu]

Will you ever grow the fuck up? I'm sure your rant has something to do with the US news but nothing to do with anything here. This story is pretty shallow but is more than 48 hours old on its website. Does that cure your derangement? You need to actually take your medication as directed.

Confucius Say

[Anonymous Coward]

This thread will be a shit-show.

But, her EMAILS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything about this administration is such an embarrassing joke.

Starting by the fact that daddy's little girl and his husband are somehow working for the WH, without any qualification whatsoever.

Re:But, her EMAILS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jared and Ivanka have Top Secret clearances thanks to Trump. It is insane.

Re:But, her EMAILS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the voters should be embarrassed. They won't lift a finger to produce anything better than Trump and Clinton. Both are a perfect reflection. That's the elephant in the room that everybody is so busy trying to paint over, with a map of Russia...

But her emails!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't she in jail? WHY?

Re:Nevermind Mueller!

[Anonymous Coward]

Were you ever able to meme while being original?

Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues ,,,,

[Freischutz]

Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues To Use' Private Messaging For White House Business

LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! .....

Re: Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues ,,,,

[Anonymous Coward]

Using private email for public business isn't illegal. Deleting important emails like Hillary did is what's illegal.

Re:Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues ,,,,

[DNS-and-BIND]

Hillary proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that top government officials are exempt from these kind of laws. Why is it a surprise that the practice continues?

Re:Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues ,,,,

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Clinton was absolved. These people deserve to be absolved too. Just like Billy with his trysts in the oval office.

Suck it up! It's over. Enjoy getting fucked, you asked for it.

Re:With Mueller failing, haters need something els

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody is talking as if they know what's in the Mueller Report. They don't. It's in Barr's hands now.

All that article talks about is indictments when we know there are many SEALED indictments. We knew since last year there's an INDIVIDUAL-1 that's obviously the president. And we knew if Trump fired Mueller, the fallout would have been massive.

In short, this article is nothing but spin.

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also people can't tell the difference between trolling and vicious mocking. Hint: most social media is not trolling

Re:With Mueller failing, haters need something els

[Maelwryth]

"With Mueller failing to deliver any damage to the President, his haters need new stuff to throw — in the hope, something will stick...

Actually, the only news referring to,"damage to the President" is that there were no more indictments recommended by Mueller. It is entirely possible that his legal advice is that a sitting President cannot be indicted so he is leaving it up to Congress (Or something. Not an American). It is also possible that there is evidence in the report but not clear enough to indict leaving the entire situation pretty much the same. You should probably wait until the report comes out in full, if it ever does.

Re:Nevermind Mueller!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look here instead everyone! Here's the real problem!

It's only a problem if Hillary does it. Because she could be expected to know what she was doing. Nobody expects a Trump to act with a clue of what he is doing. Thinking with the gut is what people voted into office, so you cannot blame the Trumps if they do what they were elected for.

Re:Clinton Selling Access To State Secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:Nevermind Mueller!

[Anonymous Coward]

Were you ever able to meme while being original?

Silly AC!

Leftists can't meme!

Just ask Pepe. 8=)

Clinton's Security Crimes

[L_R_Shaw]

> Using private email for public business isn't illegal.

Yes

> Deleting important emails like Hillary did is what's illegal.

The emails were under a preservation order from a Congressional subpoena/investigation.

The addition crimes by Clinton were:

* Removing top or other types of US government secret data/communications from the secured US intelligence security network(s).
* Selling/providing access to those same documents to third parties - ie. Clinton Foundation donors

Beyond Clinton's major crimes, the damage to United States security is immense. In Clinton's attempts to circumvent US intelligence safeguards for top secret information, her illegal server was completely unsecured and is known to have been hacked by various enemies of the US and the top secret information stolen.

High five Hillary! You fucked your country for hundreds in millions dollars to your sham foundation.

Re:Clinton Selling Access To State Secrets

[L_R_Shaw]

Wow, the foaming at the mouth Hillary Clinton Deadenders are going on a rampage with their modpoints.

LOL

The meltdown for the Mueller Nothingburger is almost as bad as the election night.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Mr. 'Drone A Weddding Party' Obama twice.

Recordings of all conversations

[Njovich]

So are all conversations they have person to person also part of the public record? There should be some kind of difference between internal conversations of members of the same team (where hey, at some point, you will have a beer together) and official business between organizations or even countries where decisions are being made.

Re:Recordings of all conversations

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's fascinating law. I believe that the latest version is available at recent amendments to it are recorded at https://www.congress.gov/bill/.... As best I can understand it, the law includes voicemail and text messages. I believe that it was deliberately crafted after Richard Nixon's impeachment.

Re:Recordings of all conversations

[Anonymous Coward]

"continues to use" WhatsApp to conduct official White House business

Also, Javaka don't drink beer. Javaka drinks Zima

Re:Are Jared and Ivanka Storing US State Secrets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you sweet summer child.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:Nevermind Mueller!

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're going to write "nevermind"
why don't you also write "lookhere"
never mind the difference huh

LOL

[L_R_Shaw]

Washington Post...LOL!

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go son.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...

Ivanka is full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

So before she took the office and was told the rules, she had NEVER ONCE known what Hllary had been accused of, nor what her fathers' chanting to his braindead adoring mini horde of "LOCK HER UP!" was about, huh?

BOLLOCKS.

BIG SWEATY HAIRY DRIPPING BOLLOCKS.

You're full of shit, Ivanka. And your dad's mushroom.

Re:Ivanka is full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more willing to believe that Ivanka knew full well about the rules, and about the accusations against Hillary. Anyone who is intimate with the details of that case knows the true lesson to be learned from Hillary's email scandal: You can totally get away with it.

The biggest question is, if Hillary hadn't show Ivanka how easy it is to get away with this, would Ivanka have even attempted this in the first place?

Hey Democrats!

[Anonymous Coward]

No one believes you anymore.

Whre's trumps tax records?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the trump emails. Where are the trump birth certificates. Where is the record of MElania's obedience for the terms of her visa?

For every one of your accusations, you are ignoring deliberately 400 of your sides' own violations that are worse.

Re:Whre's trumps tax records?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your tribalism is noted.

You mean dick and shrub, yes?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have deleted thousands of their emails. AFTER the court ordeded those emails handed over.

What's that? Silence? Deflection to Democrats? AVoidance of your sides 100x worse atrocities? So very republican of you.

Dummy...

[L_R_Shaw]

LOL, 2017

Hey dummy! How about posting some Rachel Maddow clips or some Louise Mensch tweets next...

Re:Dummy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to see your double standards come with a deadline!

Not True

[L_R_Shaw]

Other people in the government or military have been convicted of similar security crimes.

They didn't have a corrupt Attorney General to keep them from being prosecuted like Clinton had with Loretta Lynch.

Re:Clinton Selling Access To State Secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

The only insane frothing at the mouth is the anti-hillary shriekers like you dearie. She was investigated thoroughly for many years. Yet you demand that trump should not and deflect to "Waht aboot hilairy!!!!!" And when your idiocy is treated with the disdain and scorn it deserves, you HAVE to pretend it is just raving lunacy, not people actually connecting to reality and finding you falling FAR SHORT of it. Because otherwise you would not be able to maintain both your idiocy and your ego's satisfaction.

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary used private server, had TS emails etc and nothing happened. So no big deal...

Dick and Shrub proved it years before

[Anonymous Coward]

When they deleted emails that the court had specifically ordered handed over. That you ignore your side doing it and just wind back far enough to claim that the other side started it shows how little your clams to reality match it.

How Jared still keeps his WH job is beyond me

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when he was caught trying to set up a secret communications channel with the Kremlin and every Republican was like "meh"?

Re:How Jared still keeps his WH job is beyond me

[Anonymous Coward]

Just read the Mueller report for all the details!

Oh, wait.

If they're doing nothing wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

....then they have nothing to hide

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox's headline the same day this broke was about Clinton's use of email. Anything to distract from the Trump fam's blatant wrongdoing.

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused, now it's not that big of a deal?

Horseshit. Parent is a lying Troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton's lying about her illegal server is not the major crime.

The major crime was setting up an illegal external server to store and give access to US state secret documents - primarily Clinton Foundation donors.

This is why when she, thankfully, lost to Trump, Clinton Foundation 'donations' suddenly stopped. Donors no longer had the incredibly lucrative US top secret documents Clinton had been illegally removing from the US intelligence security systems.

That's complete horseshit. Where do you fucking people get that shit?! And to actually believe it? Or are you one of the liars who are spreading such horseshit for your own twisted amusement?

Our country is divided and fucked up because of assholes like you spreading lies and misinformation. Are some Russian motherfucker trying to instill discord?

Re:Horseshit. Parent is a lying Troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

>You're spreading disinformation (that isn't true because I said!)
>You evil Russian!!!!!

This whole sorry event has been a real lesson in the utter inadequacies of the human brain. You Dems have gone full tribal, and your party is going to die because of it.

Thank God.

Re:Horseshit. Parent is a lying Troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

See the Clinton Foundation donations for yourself. Exploded when it looked like she would be elected in 2008, fell when she failed. Blossomed again when she was Sec State. Fell when she left.

Re:Horseshit. Parent is a lying Troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep it moving nothing to see here.

Re:BSD Death Knell

[Narcocide]

Not as dead as this post...

Re:Nevermind Mueller!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you know what a meme is.

i dont see anythink Unix worthy yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

ls /var/lock

Re: what kind of white house businesses might she

[Anonymous Coward]

She is just trying to get ahead.

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jared and Ivanka don't have Top Secret clearance.

Nope, that was a work of bad fiction.

[Anonymous Coward]

There were no emails that the court requested being deleted. So, wrong.
Mind you, that DID happen with Shrub and Dick. Didn't hear you bleat on about it at the time, and you're still ignoring it today!

trump should be raped and killed

[Anonymous Coward]

Shitstain

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently it's a loud worse if they're using encryption on business level stuff vice Hillary leaving TS material unencrypted on the internet. Oh, and there's hard proof of Hillary's crime and just an accusation against Kushner.

Re:Clinton Selling Access To State Secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh, Comey literally laid out the case for exactly why she should have been prosecuted, then said she shouldn't be prosecuted, and it has emerged more recently that there was White House pressure to change the wording of his report to turn "gross negligence" (an actual criminal offense) into "extreme carelessness".

Unlike the Dems, Republicans actually care that their leaders don't violate the law. But we also don't allow people to just trump up charges against our people. You idiots were shrieking about how you were going to impeach Trump from day one long before you ever had any evidence or even a fucking narraitive. We watched you scheme to come up with one in real time.

And now you are going to PAY for it.

Mooler's Nothingburgers

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, I know I've let you down

I've been a fool to myself

I thought that I could

live for no one else

But now through all the hurt and pain

Its time for me to respect

the ones you love

mean more than anything.

So with sadness in my heart

I feel the best thing I could do

is end it all

and leave forever

whats done is done, it feels so bad

what once was happy now is sad

I'll never love again

my world is ending

I wish that I could turn back time

'cause now the guilt is all mine

can't live without the trust from those you love.

I know we can't forget the past

you can't forget love and pride

because of that it's killing me inside

It all returns to nothing, it all comes

tumbling down, tumbling down,

tumbling down,

it all returns to nothing, I just keep

letting me down, letting me down,

letting me down,

in my heart of hearts,

I know that I could never love again

I've lost everything

everything, everything

that matters to me,

matters in this world

I wish that I could turn back time

'cause now all the guilt is mine

can't live without

the trust from those you love

I know we can't forget the past

we can't forget love and pride

because of that, its killing me inside

It all returns to nothing, it all comes

tumbling down, tumbling down,

tumbling down

it all returns to nothing, I just keep

letting me down, letting me down,

letting me down

It all returns to nothing, it all comes

tumbling down, tumbling down,

tumbling down

it all returns to nothing, I just keep

letting me down, letting me down,

letting me down

Stop lying

[DogDude]

Stop lying. Everything was investigated by a Republican Congress and it was found that she did nothing wrong.

Re:Stop lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop lying yourself.

It was found that she had blatantly and deliberately mishandled classified information, then attempted to conceal it by destroying the evidence (and not with a cloth).

It was also found that, despite the intention of the head FBI lawyer, "senior officials in the FBI" chose to NOT recommend charges be filed... despite all the evidence of her criminal activity. The same senior official that wrote a letter exonerating Clinton BEFORE she or her staff was interviewed. The same senior official that allowed her and her entire staff to be granted immunity for their testimony. The same senior official that public admitted that he expected Clinton to win the election and become his boss.

A blatantly corrupt official allowing someone to get away with a crime is NOT "doing nothing wrong".
Or maybe you think OJ will find the real killer any day now?

Re:Stop lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop lying. Everything was investigated by a Republican Congress and it was found that she did nothing wrong.

Investigated multiple times, even. Still, nothing.

Re:Stop lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Plot twist:

republicans = democrats

only difference is name.

Trump Said It Best

[LifesABeach]

"Lock'em up"

Re:Trump Said It Best

[DNS-and-BIND]

All I ever heard was how non-serious this was, and what a trivial violation it was, and mishandling top secret documents in a way that guaranteed they fell into the hands of Russian intelligence (It was a windows server computer and the program was **Microsoft remote desktop**. No shell requirement to get into her shit. It was that **easy**), and the only remediation should be mandated training for the personnel involved.

In the interest of consistency and fairness, the following must be done: an exoneration letter must be drafted in advance. Immunity given to top Trump aides. The #2 official's family has received large donations from Trump's political friends. Prior to the interview, the lead official meets privately on plane tarmac with Trump's wife (to discuss grandchildren). As long as they believe no harm was intended, he's let off the hook for any violations. Trump aides should be permitted to destroy subpoenaed or relevant public records and wipe relevant servers with a cloth or something.

Re:Trump Said It Best

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't read the sentence closely enough. It says 'em' - which is shorter for 'THEM'. See, it doesn't say US, it says them. Please try to understand the difference, its kinda important :)

hahaha you precious sweet summer child.

Re:Trump Said It Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Lock em all up. This is either illegal or it isn't.

Re:Trump Said It Best

[LifesABeach]

Makes sense, once they pay their debt to society. Then, ship their Ivan loving asses to Russia.

Complete horseshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's so little to reality in your post and so much gish galloping, I'll just leave it at horseshit. You don't care and I know you don't, so complete rebuttal is meaningless.
You're talking horseshit.

Re:Complete horseshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words: all you got is ad hominem.

Re:Complete horseshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Tribalists always fall when confronted with civilization. The Dems have embraced tribalism, and now they are about to meet a civilized system of justice.

Re: Complete horseshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

If only Americans knew what irony was.

The Customer's Perspective

[ytene]

If you look beyond the obvious partisan memes that continue to be spouted here, there are a couple of much more significant, underlying concerns.

1. Why have officially mandated guidelines for all those serving in government - including post-holders, employees and advisors - not been tightened? If the concerns raised by the "Clinton Email Server" were as serious as the talking heads would have us believe, then when the Republicans came to power in 2016, why was the first new legislation on the slate not a comprehensive review of "conduct in public office", with permissible and impermissible activities more clearly defined?


3. Why is it acceptable for "dark money" to be given to aid political campaigns, with voters having no visibility of sources and therefore no way of knowing if decisions and votes being cast by elected representatives are given based on representing their electorate or based on the requirements of those special interests?

One way to look at this is as a customer - you a buying a service from the federal government by virtue of the taxes you pay.

In order to be able to look at this objectively, we need to cast aside the specifics of Hilary's email server or Kushner's use of Whatsapp, or Jrvanka's access to Top Secret information through clearances that raised strenuous objections from every agency involved... Instead we have to look at this from th eperspective of imagining a worst-case scenario: that the republic is under direct attack from hostile foreign actors, corrupt insiders and mendacious corporations and make sure that the framework in which government operates is designed from the get-go to safeguard *us* from abuses of that system.

Many /. readers have a technical background and are familiar with the concept of designing systems with redundancy, reliability and independent controls [to ensure effectiveness]. None of these concepts are beyond us - certainly not beyond an institution with the budget of the federal government.

In shore, there are no excuses for the public to accept these failures of their government.

Re:The Customer's Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

offshore then?

Re:The Customer's Perspective

[tempo36]

Because the GOP 1) didn't really believe that the emails were anything other than a BS talking point and 2) they want to use their own private communication too (see #1).

Re:The Customer's Perspective

[theCoder]

The problem with Clinton's email server wasn't that she had a personal mail server. That's kind of cool (well, until I found out she was running Exchange on it). The problem was the spillage of classified information through it. You do not discuss classified information on the unclassified domain. Period. Most of the time, that sort of thing involves a harsh prison sentence, so it's already very illegal. No new laws were needed, and it is very different from complying with open records laws.

Re:Are Jared and Ivanka Storing US State Secrets?

[DogDude]

Are Jared and Ivanka storing US state secrets on illegal external servers outside the control of the US intelligence agencies?

Us Intelligence agencies controls Whatsapp? I'm sure there are many people who'd like to know this little fact, including the US intelligence agencies. Have you told them, yet?

Re: Who CARES!?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Because people piss their pants if it's not a technology related story on Slashdot, so someone needs to find a tech angle for Mueller to get that posted.

There should be a Betteridge's or Godwin's Law postulating that Slashdotters are capable of finding a tech angle on anything.

It's kinda sorta like the IT UI saying: "Nothing can be made foolproof, because fools are so ingenius."

That said, I don't come here to read the tech news . . . I come here to read what other tech folks think about the news.

A Slashdot story about Kim Kardashian's butt would probably get a post stating:

"I am a postdoc using advanced topological quantum entanglement field theory models with butt cheeks to create Higgs Bosons."

" . . . and it is a good excuse for a noonday wank."

So for me, a tech folks discussion about the Mueller Report would be potentially interesting . . . however, given the current polarized state of US politics at the moment . . . it would quickly deteriorate into a flame fest.

I would need to set my browsing settings at +5 to avoid the trash.

Re:With Mueller failing, haters need something els

[tinkerton]

It's a major fault in /. moderation system that posts are so easily and frequently modded as troll. A comment, however stupid it is, can only be modded as troll if it clearly insincere.
This is a comment I actually agree with so you can imagine the misbehavior of the modders is even more offensive .
  It is indeed very obvious that with the ending of the Mueller investigation every possible claim against the sitting government will be thrown at it to draw attention away from it.

Well, not every possible claim. Nobody cares about the things where he really stinks. This is a horrible president folks, but the only cases where he had the right instinct were the cases where he got resistance from everyone: North Korea (mostly been torpedoed but not dead yet), Afghanistan(might still succeed), Russia(gave up on that very quickly), Syria(unclear). Venezuela: let's get that oil. So that makes him presidential.

Except that is a fake reality.

[Anonymous Coward]

For a start, Dick and Shrub deleted emails the court specifically asked for, years earlier.
Second, Dick used private email servers. Years earlier.
Third, Hillary did not delete any emails requested by the court.
Fourth, she was investigated BY A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and found innocent.
Fifth, so what? YOU claim to be the party of responsiblity and law and order, yet you do the same AND WORSE crimes you accuse, not prove, accuse, others of, and proclaim that THE DEMOCRATS are just criminals, yet you want to ALSO proclaim that "nah your fault we broke the law! And here's a history that only goes back to when YOU did it, and I will claim YOU FIRST!!!".

Dumbass idiot. Pure republican bullshit and criminality.

Re:Except that is a fake reality.

[Anonymous Coward]

Deep breaths, okay?

Regardless of all your points, the problem is that the emails were on an insecure server. Nobody can measure the damage caused by that. Proper infosec policy in a "they left the door wide open" situation is to rightfully assume that the data has already been breached by an innumerable amount of parties.

I don't think what Ivanka and Jared are doing is smart, either. I think it's a terrible move; I'm just saying that it's very likely that the recent history with Hillary's emails has emboldened them. Even if Hillary did everything by the book, as you say, that's not what Republicans believe, and Ivanka and Jared are... you guessed it... Republicans!

Also, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Canadian, which means I'll always be more to the left than you no matter how hard you try. Have a nice day, eh! *waves and smiles*

Re:Except that is a fake reality.

[Cmdln Daco]

Fix your caps lock key. Or maybe just buy a new keyboard. You've almost certainly sputtered on that one enough that it's very damaged.

Re:Are Jared and Ivanka Storing US State Secrets?

[DogDude]

Jared and Ivanka aren't dealing with state secrets

They're not? Then why do they have top level security clearance?

And I am ever so certain

[rsilvergun]

that Jared and Ivanka used an app known for it's end to end encryption an ability to maintain privacy and secrecy with the full intention of maintaining all records.

Also, I'm quite certain I'm Napoleon. Viva la France!

Re: And I am ever so certain

[subie]

Supposedly they are maintaining backups of their email and making them available.

Re:And I am ever so certain

[whoever57]

with the full intention of maintaining all records.

Wow, some people are naive. Or just blinded by ideology.

It's not "all records", it's "the records Kushner chooses to maintain". And those records are in a format which is not searchable (screenshots).

Re:So you should have thought of that shit

[DewDude]

Somewhere there's a bridge.....

Re: Are Jared and Ivanka Storing US State Secrets?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The decision last year to grant Mr. Kushner a top-secret clearance upgraded him from earlier temporary and interim status. He never received a higher-level designation that would have given him access to need-to-know intelligence known as sensitive compartmented information."
Unlike Hillary.

Re:Clinton Selling Access To State Secrets

[p4nther2004]

Unlike the Dems, Republicans actually care that their leaders don't violate the law.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. I won't be holding my breath for a chant...any chant...of lock him up.

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you for real? Jared has top secret clearance by Trump's express order.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly the Clinton, Bush and Obama admins did it and nobody got in trouble. So big fucking deal. Give it a rest you diarrhetic assholes on slashdot with an axe to grind.

Re: Who CARES!?

[subie]

Good point

Re: With Mueller failing, haters need something el

[subie]

We dont need their oil when are producing more than them.

Republicans cleared her, not Democrats.

[Anonymous Coward]

And before Hillary there was Shrub and Cheney. Republicans. Who got given the walk DESPITE DELETING EMAILS THE COURT REQUESTED. Since you didn't complain when you did it before, you can't blame Hillary for you not complaining about you doing it AGAIN.
Maybe you should have thought before posting your bollocks. Try something not so obviously ideologically blinded and contrafactual.

Re:Republicans cleared her, not Democrats.

[kenh]

Republicans "lost" then found literally millions of emails.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

Re: With Mueller failing, haters need something el

[tinkerton]

It's never about needing the oil. It is about controlling it and a bit about selling it.

Your Horseshit

[Uberbah]

Mishandling classified evidence is what would send Hillary to prison for decades, for using an unsecured, unauthorized server adminned by a guy who didn't have a security clearance. Just ask Kristian Saucier who was prosecuted by the DOJ for taking selfies on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone on a sub.

And what do YOU think the government would do to you if you destroyed thousands of pieces of evidence while under active FBI investigation?

Re:Your Horseshit

[kenai_alpenglow]

Saucier is a deplorable. HRC is nobility. Equal protection under the law? Riiiiiiiiight....

Re: Your Horseshit

[astrofurter]

In Soviet America all people are equal before the Law. But some classes of people are more equal than others.

Ahahah. Right.

[tempo36]

"[H]er lawyer says she sent the emails before she was briefed on the rules."

It's a testament to this lawyer's iron will that he/she could utter that sentence without vomiting. If there's anyone on earth who really thinks that this administration could have entered the White House being blissfully unaware that email privacy and security was something to probably think about...

The partisan morons are revealed

[AlanObject]

The very first month Trump is in office he blows up Israeli intelligence assets out in the open. It was made known that Israel's security officials now considered anything "leaked" to the U.S. president is at risk. It hasn't gotten any better since then but domestic intelligence has adopted the practice of withholding things from him.

Over every objection by each and every U.S. intelligence agency Ivanka and Jared are given security clearances. These two are paid with taxpayer dollars to advise the president.

I & J have been revealed to be in conflict of interest in multiple instances involving foreign entities, both government and private. The entire family has been shown to be skirting the law and is most likely open to blackmail.

Now we have many posts in this thread that state with absolute confidence that I & J could not possibly have anything worth investigating and by no means could have possibly have compromised anything. The mind reels.

Buttery Males.

Re:The partisan morons are revealed

[whoever57]

and is most likely open to blackmail.

"most likely"? Just look at the recent 99 year lease taken out on the building that was likely to bankrupt the Kushner family business.

Re:The partisan morons are revealed

[Anonymous Coward]

> These two are paid with taxpayer dollars to advise the president.

That statement is patently false - they do not take government salary of any kind.

"first daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump, son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and intergovernmental and technology aide Reed Cordish — take home no pay from taxpayers, according to the disclosure." - https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/30/trump-white-house-salaries-240149

Re:The partisan morons are revealed

[AlanObject]

> These two are paid with taxpayer dollars to advise the president.

That statement is patently false - they do not take government salary of any kind.

"first daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump, son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and intergovernmental and technology aide Reed Cordish — take home no pay from taxpayers, according to the disclosure." - https://www.politico.com/story...

Thank you for falling for my trap. It was so obvious I thought nobody would bite. But given that you seem to be paying some attention...

Here is Newsweek: Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner Made More Than $82 Million While Working at White House.

So, you consider this OK? You think there are no conflicts of interest here?

I remember when Republicans were so morally outraged by someone losing $52K on a real estate deal called Whitewater before they were eleccted that they spent $70M+ of taxpayer dollars investigating it.

I remember when Republicans insisted that an elected president sell off his peanut farm, in his family for generations.

But Republicans don't seem to care about any of this: Trump just sold (less than a month ago) a condo for $2.9M -- highest prices in that building ever -- to a foreign interest willing to pay a way-above market price for what reason do you suppose. Don't waste time pretending it is something DJT delegated -- his own signature is on the document. It is speculated that he needed the money to pay off fines (the same amount, roughly) that the Republicans don't care much about either.

So I get it that Republicans don't care beyond an occasional harumph on cable news. Trump appoints the far-right judges they want and signs off on tax breaks. What I don't get is the partisan morons that support this even though it has nothing to do with their own self interest.

As I said: partisan morons. And Buttery Males.

News for nerds...

[Anonymous Coward]

...stuff that matters(?)

Re: Who CARES!?

[phantomfive]

What's in the Mueller report?

Re: Who CARES!?

[drinkypoo]

Yep. The fact it's done is a minor news item. When we find out what's actually in it, if we find out, that will be real news.

Re:With Mueller failing, haters need something els

[LynnwoodRooster]

Moderation at Slashdot is "-1 if I don't like what you said, even if it's true and referenced", unfortunately... Feelings seem to matter more and more, over facts.

Missed the ending...

[Anonymous Coward]

Burma Shave

Forgot?

[Anonymous Coward]

While they let Hillary off , and unless the Trumpkids did anything worse doubt there will b any serious consequences. PR it is clumsy given the campaign rhetoric.

Dem dishonesty, mountains & molehills

[Uberbah]

This is just whatabboutery on behalf of Hillary Clinton without mentioning her by name. No one else has set up their own private server, used it extensively & exclusively for electronically communicating the highest levels of classified information, or destroyed huge amounts of evidence while under active FBI investigation. There is no comparison whatsoever between Hillary and any Republican - Republicans, by the way, who Hillary blasted for using "secret email" accounts a mere two years before setting up her own secret email server. So she was a much worse hypocrite, much earlier, than anyone who chanted "lock her up" but now doesn't care about the Kushner's.

And that's not the end of the BS. There's the nonsense that Hillary's emails were ok because they weren't marked classified. If Hillary got an email from a CIA section chief in Japan about the state of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, that information didn't have to be stamped as classified to be treated as such - it was inherently classified. A fact Hillary knew full well as she received special training on handling such information.

Then there's the line that it wasn't that bad because Hillary didn't have any intent to mishandle or misuse any information. But intent is completely irrelevant to being charged with handling classified evidence - just ask Kristian Saucier. He was prosecuted by the same DOJ that whitewashed Hillary's actions, despite the DOJ agreeing that he had no intention of misusing the selfies he took on Navy submarines. They prosecuted him anyway, because he had classified information on his unsecured, unauthorized phone. Hillbots, try and explain why she shouldn't be prosecuted for her unsecured, unauthorized server when far lesser people have done time in federal pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiaries.

Last but not least, there's the destruction of tens of thousands of pieces of evidence while under active FBI investigation. Dembots have been cheering Mueller for indictments over process crimes, like lying to the FBI. Just what do you think St. Robert would have done if Manafort or Papadopolis had deleted 30,000+ emails while he was actively investigating them. They'd get decades for obstruction of justice, even if that was the only charge he went to trial with.

Re: Who CARES!?

[weilawei]

All agreed there; that's why some of us browse at -1 permanently, so we can dig through the wreckage and upvote hidden gems (defined as Shit I Like).

What makes the system of moderation great is that it allows us to use our own squishy matter between the ears to decide what we'd like to see, instead of nanny stating us like sheeple.

So how does she delete a server????

[Anonymous Coward]

You chop and change your make believe accusations to fit what you need at the tim, not reality and not even your own proclamation of honour. Moreover, Hillary had precedent all the way back to Dick Cheney that Secretaries of state could use private secured email servers, just not for classified info. Tell me of any prior presidential daughter and son-in-law who had TS clearance and a private email service for government work for THEIR precedent.

Not forgetting YOUR SIDE ran on the "don't vote her in, she'll hide her emails from you and your scrutiny!", not Hillary. If you'd gone and admitted you'd do it to and ran on THAT plank, you'd have a point.

You didn't, so you don't.

Wow. Ad hom much do we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or was the "breathe deeply" jut a nonsequtur to poison the well and propose that
a) you're the "rational" one
b) I'm "irrational"
without actually having to defend that slur or provide anything other than your feelings of hurt and wonderment that anyone could DARE to criticise pro-republican bullshit?

Try engaging your forebrain, not the lizard era parts.

The point is that they were not on an insecure server for Hillary, they ARE for Jared and Ivanka. Hillary had a private server, not one owned by a non government private entity that was never secured in the first place beyond that required for them to operate as a business, not a government arm.

There were only a few barely security clearance documents on Hillary's server, the few others were only changed clearance AFTER they were written, so are not a problem due to grandfathering, the info had "already bolted".

So, yeah, fake concern troll detected, ad hom/nonsequitur/poisoning the well fallacy found, fake reality retcon rebutted.

Oh, and both you fucking retards completely non sequitured away the actual points one through five, preferring to just attack me instead of the claims. Morons.

Re:Wow. Ad hom much do we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere did I say I'm pro-anything. All I want is for politicians to know how to properly secure their computers and communications. Neither Hillary, Ivanka or Jared need a separate server for email communication. Just having one in the first place was wrong. They can all log in to the appropriate networks from approved systems like everyone else in Washington is expected to do.

But go ahead, get angry and keep calling me a Republican just because I'm disagreeing with you, if it really makes you feel better. I honestly don't care what your opinion is of me.

Re: Who CARES!?

[fustakrakich]

All this nail biting for the benefit of the advertisers and tabloids...

Ratio is high today

[cpurdy]

I'm just here for the ratio.

(The /. ratio is defined as the ratio of AC comments by paid Russian propagandists compared to the rest of the comments in aggregate.)

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

A nothingburger, served on a dirty ashtray.

December

[kenh]

senior White House advisor Jared Kushner's lawyer admitted in December

This is news now? I remember hearing about this at the time (December) - Cummings isn't claiming they are using WhatsApp today.

Just to be clear an exchange between a husband and wife where oneor both work in the whitehouse about whether the other will be home for dinner qualifies as "official whitehouse business" since it involves their work schedule.

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero indictments related to collusion or conspiracy.

You already know what's in it. It might as well say, "Trump 2020 MAGA!"

Re:With Mueller failing, haters need something els

[kenh]

Individual 1 is a name for the President in a Southern District of New York investigation, not Mueller investigation.

Re: Are Jared and Ivanka Storing US State Secrets?

[astrofurter]

How naive are you? OF COURSE our intelligence agencies control WhatsApp. It's part of friggin' FACEBOOT for crying out loud!

Re: Who CARES!?

[AutodidactLabrat]

How is there a more important story than the hypocrisy of the right, who will be dictating who you can fcuk for the next 70 years via the stolen seat on the Supreme Court?

Mob chants are NOT insightful NOR presidential

[shanen]

LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! .....

Excellent example of the brokenness of Slashdot's moderation. I can see the selfish (even authoritarian) basis for the "I disagree" negative mods, but what's the justification for insightful in such a tiny joke? A "funny" mod or two for the satirical aspects might have been justified, but I don't think nepotism, even flagrant nepotism, calls for the chanting mob.

However it does remind me of the parody protest I'd like to see, based on the chant of "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" Obviously it would be a parody of a Trump rally, but as part of a protest against child separation, especially for asylum seekers. I think for maximum impact, the protesters should chant in "Trump face", with the short video building to a crescendo of rage before dissolving into mad screams. Each Trump face could be as simple as a piece of paper. I'd recommend an angry shouty closeup of Trump's face. Try to forget the image of a mob of enraged little Trumps!

Well done, I think that such a video might go viral. It might even cause some people to stop and think "Do I really want to be part of that sort of thing?"

The bottom line is that it is legal to seek asylum. Be quite amusing if Trump's supporters want to flee in panic because the next president turns out to be a Democratic anti-Trump with Trumpian tendencies, only to discover that Canada and Mexico have closed the borders and will separate them from their children if they seek asylum.

Re:Mob chants are NOT insightful NOR presidential

[Freischutz]

LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! .....

Excellent example of the brokenness of Slashdot's moderation. I can see the selfish (even authoritarian) basis for the "I disagree" negative mods, but what's the justification for insightful in such a tiny joke? A "funny" mod or two for the satirical aspects might have been justified, but I don't think nepotism, even flagrant nepotism, calls for the chanting mob.

However it does remind me of the parody protest I'd like to see, based on the chant of "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" Obviously it would be a parody of a Trump rally, but as part of a protest against child separation, especially for asylum seekers. I think for maximum impact, the protesters should chant in "Trump face", with the short video building to a crescendo of rage before dissolving into mad screams. Each Trump face could be as simple as a piece of paper. I'd recommend an angry shouty closeup of Trump's face. Try to forget the image of a mob of enraged little Trumps!

Well done, I think that such a video might go viral. It might even cause some people to stop and think "Do I really want to be part of that sort of thing?"

The bottom line is that it is legal to seek asylum. Be quite amusing if Trump's supporters want to flee in panic because the next president turns out to be a Democratic anti-Trump with Trumpian tendencies, only to discover that Canada and Mexico have closed the borders and will separate them from their children if they seek asylum.

Slashdot should introduce a '-1 Bwaaaaaaahhhhh! ... UNFAIR!' mod just for Republicans.

Re:Mob chants are NOT insightful NOR presidential

[shanen]

I can't tell if you are joking with some form of sarcasm or just ACKing my comment.

However, I do not think that would be a solution approach that would lead anywhere. In the specific context of Slashdot, I think the two most important approaches would be (1) Make the dimensions properly orthogonal and symmetric and (2) Make moderation reflexive and symmetric with a multidimensional form of karma. In more general contexts, I think the broadest brush I've painted with is currently called MEPR. One version is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik....

Weird thought of the morning is that programming is a kind of meta-thinking. Leading to the conclusion that I was only a second tier programmer because I am too meta or not meta enough, or perhaps because I lack sufficient control when my thoughts move between levels. I've definitely convinced that the first tier programmers I've worked for and with are more clear and focused in their meta-thinking. (I see it as a related topic, though I'm not sure how to express the closeness of the relationship... I feel it, but I can't say it. Another aspect of my zen collapse?)

#shitholecountry #amurikanproblems

[Anonymous Coward]

Surrrrre looks like a SHITHOLE COUNTRY to the rest of the world.

Potatoe, poh-tah-toe

[Xenographic]

> It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong".

Wow, that's really neat. You can completely ignore bribery laws by declaring that you intended to favor those donors regardless of their donations? That's incredibly convenient!

Re: Potatoe, poh-tah-toe

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think that Hillary is the only one to do this? Trump does it as well. They all fucking do. It's SOP for Washington politicians.

How are you people surprised by this?

Re:Potatoe, poh-tah-toe

[quantaman]

> It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong".

Wow, that's really neat. You can completely ignore bribery laws by declaring that you intended to favor those donors regardless of their donations? That's incredibly convenient!

You're not buying a decision as much as the opportunity to make your case to the people who make decisions. There is a distinction.

But it also misses the point. This is completely normal politician behaviour. Even Obama ended up appointing a bunch of major donors as ambassadors since... well that's just how the system works.

Honestly, this is why so much of the criticism against Clinton gets tagged as sexist.

50 male politicians do it "oh well, that sucks but that politics".

Clinton does it "OMG!!! This is bribery!!! Throw her in jail!!!"

It can't be bribery only when Clinton does it. And if you say it's bribes for everyone then Clinton can't be the only one you criticize for accepting bribes.

Re:Potatoe, poh-tah-toe

[Anonymous Coward]

> You're not buying a decision as much as the opportunity to make your case to the people who make decisions. There is a distinction.

Ahh, you're just buying "access" so it's okay, right? I was planning on giving my donors pork, so there's no harm in it!

> Even Obama ended up appointing a bunch of major donors as ambassadors since... well that's just how the system works.

So, bribery is okay now, got it.

> Honestly, this is why so much of the criticism against Clinton gets tagged as sexist.

Bribery laws are sexist, folks! You heard it here first!

> It can't be bribery only when Clinton does it. And if you say it's bribes for everyone then Clinton can't be the only one you criticize for accepting bribes.

Funny, because she's not and you had to make that up to justify yourself. I'm happy to punish everyone proven to have accepted bribes. What about you?

As long as Hillary walks free, fine with whatever

[SuperKendall]

Until you arrest the grand prize winner for top secret material stored on a box conveniently accessible to the world, until that day I say not one government official should be punished for leaking information.

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

So all that bitching when Hillary did it, all those lock her up chants, but when trumps family does it...crickets?

You repubtards are the biggest hypocrites ever.

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

His lawyer admitted it. This isn't an accusation.

What's good for the good is good for the gander right? Where are those lock em up chants at now?

Fuck off hypocrite repubtard.

Re:Clinton Selling Access To State Secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

So you prefer the Trumps and Kushners giving the secrets away to the Clintons selling the secrets?

And it's OK for Jared to use WhatsApp to send national security secrets to the Saudis because he's using somebody else's server instead of setting up his own?

dom

Re: Who CARES!?

[Highdude702]

*raises hand*

What do I do if some of my squishy matter leaked out on the floor?

NSA can read it at least

[Anonymous Coward]

There is that

Trumps

[Anonymous Coward]

After all the shit they have been involved in, and after Mueller's report was submitted without anyone named Trump getting indicted, the Trump family truly is above the law. Nothing at all ever sticks to anyone named Trump.

Cummings is a Liar

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't know, he doesn't have ANY evidence, only well-documented animus.

He is simply mounting a smear campaign, backed by most of the malicious mainstream media to slander any Trump-related persons and try to convince some other committee or law enforcement group to harass them. That much is obvious to all.

In the wake of the Mueller fiasco never achieving an erection for them, perhaps he will only be given the consideration he deserves, ie little to none.

Time would be better spent in looking into the multiple accusations of corruption lodged against Cummings [] that he has spent much of his political life trying to avoid.

It's about 2 threads down from here...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I won't be holding my breath for a chant...any chant...of lock him up.

There's one in this story, down a few threads.

Re:As long as Hillary walks free, fine with whatev

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush's 22 million emails.

Re: Who CARES!?

[zkiwi34]

The fact that nothing happened to Hillary is the precedent. If nothing happened to her, and remember there were others pre or during Hillary that got away with it, then why would such a genius as you self-proclaim yourself to be have anything to whine about vis a vis Trump et al continuing the stupidity?

Re: Who CARES!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia!

Re:Are Jared and Ivanka Storing US State Secrets?

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes perfect sense. The state secrets cease to be secret as soon as Jared and Ivanka deal with them. The top secret clearance is only needed to enable them to start dealing with this specific type of non-secrets.

Re:Clinton Selling Access To State Secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

>You idiots were shrieking about how you were going to impeach Trump from day one long before you ever had any evidence or even a fucking narraitive

Smooth. I'm really listening to you now.

Respectfully, some people may have held that view but it was not by any stretch the general opinion of most democrats.

WE ALL WANT RULE OF LAW.

ALL OF US.

Left, right, black, white. All of us.

Anyone that doesn't is un-American.

Define how you identify sex/gender

[Anonymous Coward]

and,yes, biologically. And I will show you cases, natural normal cases with real normal human beings who are 100% as valid members of society as you, that fit neither male nor female in your definition.

THAT is proof that there is a spectrum of genders/sexes, even biologically. Because people naturally are analogue, not binary.

You got a narcissist idiot globalist called trump.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, oddly enough, he benefits from global finances and will happily use it to profit himself. All he has to do is dogwhistle to you morons who are NOWHERE NEAR HALF THE PEOPLE about anti-semitic bullshit (globalist is just the neonazi term for the nazi term "international Jewry", see Soros' appreciation you have) that he's anti-what-you-are and you just lap it up and ignore he's a globalist too.

Ah, yes, the invisible migrant voters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough the only invisible people were at trump's inauguration, and the only votes found to be fraudulent were ones from the trump campaign team.

What about nothing happening to Shrub?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did THAT not set a precedent years earlier? Or does that not count because that's the republicans doing it, and your echo chamber will not let you know about it..?

And you non sequitur again, moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never claimed you were pro-anything, fuckwit, but you cannot rebut my points or arguments so instead you make up an accusation you can just flatly and without any evidence or reasons for believing you, proclaim is not the case.

What IS the case is you're an idiot who skipped right past every argument YET AGAIN.

And no, calling you an idiot or moron is neither ad hom (it is not in place of an argument against your "point", partly because you made none of relevance to my post), nor an insult. The FACT of your idiocy you find insulting, but it's just a plain old fact.

i dont get whats all the fuss about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its just 'important' 'people above the law' who shit on everyone else. Nothing will happen to them, 0 consequences. Move along sheeple, nothing to see here. Go watch 'American gladiator' or 'trump show' or something.

Yay, more words!

[Anonymous Coward]

Never claimed I was pro-anything, huh?

YOU claim to be the party of responsiblity and law and order

Would you care to try again?

Anyway, it's not that I cannot rebut your points or arguments, it's that I actively choose not to let myself get sidetracked by them. Your arguments because they are an obvious and amateur attempt to distract from the fundamental issue at hand. What matters is the simple, indisputable fact that politicians should not be using private email servers.

Stop ducking and weaving. All you have been doing is attempting to justify one party's actions while condemning the other, by splitting hairs on the finer, overall less relevant details. It's just a bunch of sputtering "yeah, but... yeah, but..." without any focus on the core problem.

Do you agree that it is irresponsible for politicians -- OF ANY PARTY -- to be storing work email on a private server? Yes or no? Any other response is an attempt to derail and I will not respond to such distractions, no matter how much you abuse your capslock key or call me names.

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary kept classified data on her personal email and server with a slap on the wrist.

Trump's family was doing business with a personal email, and now people want them to be punished?

That would be a double double standard.