Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
It's 2019 and "but her emails" is still going strong. Is this going to be the campaign slogan for 2020?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
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!!!)
No sig today...
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.
No sig today...
Jared & Ivanka: Couple 'Continues To Use' Private Messaging For White House Business
LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! .....
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.
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.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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.
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.
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.
I wish there was a statute of limitations on using Hillary Clinton to excuse bad behaviour.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Stop lying. Everything was investigated by a Republican Congress and it was found that she did nothing wrong.
I don't respond to AC's.
"Lock'em up"
If you look beyond the obvious partisan memes that continue to be spouted here, there are a couple of much more significant, underlying concerns.
/. 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.
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
In shore, there are no excuses for the public to accept these failures of their government.
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?
I don't respond to AC's.
Jared and Ivanka aren't dealing with state secrets
They're not? Then why do they have top level security clearance?
I don't respond to AC's.
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!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. I won't be holding my breath for a chant...any chant...of lock him up.
"[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...
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.
I stole this Sig
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
I stole this Sig
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.
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.
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.
> 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!
> 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.