Ivanka Trump used personal email account

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Yet more evidence that you're completely disconnected from reality.

Fox News contributor: ‘Unforgivable’ for Ivanka Trump to use private email after witnessing 2016 campaign

And you still don’t get it.  You seem to be so mesmerized by the eye candy.  And I’m not talking about Ivanka.  I’m talking about the bobbles or perceptions to attack Donald.  I am a bit surprised at Thiessen, but I think he’s always has been bit of a Never-Trumper.  He and you are the ones disconnected from reality.  Shall we try it again?  It is not a straight forward violation to use private email for government business.  It strictly depends on the classification of the content.  So far, nothing that Ivanka sent was classified.  She sent email to administration aides, Cabinet officials and her personal assistants.  Not all of them have clearances, so private email is the most efficient means of communication.  For that reason, those interviewed for the article (Thiessen, Mirijanian, & Tarlov) all agree that this is different.  So stop trying to twist this into something that it isn’t.  Give it a rest now before you really make a fool of yourself.

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by RavenHawk

[TomasaurusREKT]

31 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And you still don’t get it.  You seem to be so mesmerized by the eye candy.  And I’m not talking about Ivanka.  I’m talking about the bobbles or perceptions to attack Donald.  I am a bit surprised at Thiessen, but I think he’s always has been bit of a Never-Trumper.  He and you are the ones disconnected from reality.  Shall we try it again?  It is not a straight forward violation to use private email for government business.  It strictly depends on the classification of the content.  So far, nothing that Ivanka sent was classified.  She sent email to administration aides, Cabinet officials and her personal assistants.  Not all of them have clearances, so private email is the most efficient means of communication.  For that reason, those interviewed for the article (Thiessen, Mirijanian, & Tarlov) all agree that this is different.  So stop trying to twist this into something that it isn’t.  Give it a rest now before you really make a fool of yourself.

 

It don't matter what you say really. The left will twist everything and anything to warp it to their own delusional reality. 

[+and-then]

9 hours ago, third_eye said:

What ya gonna do big talker ?

What can ya do except whine ?

~

Smooches for ya, big guy!  I figure Ivanka has her issues covered and the optics of her going through a media beat-down can only be good for Trump.  Don Jr. will be on his own because he's not a sympathetic character but attacking Ivanka with what amounts to accusations that her misdeeds are in HRC's class is just butt stupid obvious - a little southern lingo - and if the Nads pushes it too far it will explode in his face.  Bring the pain, baby  

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

What are they going to do? Impeach her? She isn't elected lol.

The hit piece even has to admit that her actions don't amount to criminal behavior.  Bring in the clowns 

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, TomasaurusREKT said:

It don't matter what you say really. The left will twist everything and anything to warp it to their own delusional reality. 

Of course, they will.  Their drones will imbibe it like a wine with a fine bouquet but the other 58% of the nation will have a good chance to see them for what they are.  The thing about the fearless minions of the Globalist front, THAT'S NOT FAIR, Brigade is that they actually seem to have reached the point that so long as their echo-chamber media gives them feedback on their righteousness, their "reality" IS reality.  When the day comes that they control the Congress and WH again they're in for a big dose of reality and it will be covered by their own "sanctuary" rules  

[+Hammerclaw]

I was born in the era the Democrats held an overwhelming majority in the House for forty years, and the Senate, twenty-six of those years until the '80s. I'm starting to think that was a good thing. While the Senate began changing hands in the '80s, the house remained firmly in Democrat hands until 1995. To get anything done, compromise was the order of the day, to be able to over-ride a Presidential veto. The Democrats never felt completely disenfranchised from national government. One Party rule has polarized politics to such an extent, cooperation is anathema in most cases, now. When either rules completely, there is no moderation of excesses from Left or Right, no amelioration and mediation through compromise. Divided government is thus, a good thing, as the wishes and asperations of all the American people have, at least, a chance to be expressed and addressed. 

We've lost the sense of political comradery that once existed, the genteel civility that was the usual order of the day. We could strongly disagree, but more good-naturedly. Now, political differences have become an unbridgeable chasm, with a take-no-prisoners animosity, the rule, not the exception.  

[Big Jim]

As long as the Democrats are chasing their tails with meaningless investigations they are less likely to pass damaging legislation.  I hope they can occupy themselves like this for 2 more years.

[Tatetopa]

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

And the people handling the material are not yet cleared, yet they are the ones that act upon it.  As an example, Ivanka could have sent out two separate emails to two separate groups of people, say on 1 December.  One email to the transition team stating that the President-elect will be on travel in two days.  And another email to friends stating that she will be in Cleveland day after tomorrow.  Now either of those two emails may not necessarily be classified in itself, but putting the two together, one could deduce that Donald Trump will be in Cleveland on the 3^rd.  This is an example of the possible problems with releasing information and what drives investigators crazy. 

That is the kind of thing I would see as a risk with unsecured emails.   At least HRC's experience gave us plenty of warning  that these things can be hacked.  It may seem innocent, but I seriously hope a lesson was learned.   

[SHaYap]

10 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Thank you for repeating yourself.  Now there is no doubt.

 

Some things are eternally worth repeating ... I say . listen 'ere when I say ...

[00.00:13]

 

~

5 hours ago, and then said:

Smooches for ya, big guy!  I figure Ivanka has her issues covered and the optics of her going through a media beat-down can only be good for Trump.  Don Jr. will be on his own because he's not a sympathetic character but attacking Ivanka with what amounts to accusations that her misdeeds are in HRC's class is just butt stupid obvious - a little southern lingo - and if the Nads pushes it too far it will explode in his face.  Bring the pain, baby  

Revere the words of Daddy Kushner ...

Quote

 

~

Jared Kushner's Dad: My Son Isn't The Only Idiot In The Family | Vanity ...

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/04/jared-kushners-dad-leave-my-boy-alone

Apr 24, 2018 - When Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump decided to take senior positions in the White House that they were completely unqualified for, they ...

 

~

 

Never mind, Daddy Trump loves ya too ... Ivanka though, I don't think its appropriate even if she knew you even exists ...

~

Ooooh ... the pain ... the pain ...

~

Edited November 21, 2018 by third_eye
lunch on the stove

[Farmer77]

nvm

Edited November 21, 2018 by Farmer77

[Farmer77]

Damn liberals ......

Gowdy wants information on Ivanka Trump's use of personal email, sets December deadline

 

Quote

Outgoing House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly demanding information on Ivanka Trump’s reported use of personal email.

The letter, obtained by the Hill, follows the Washington Post report claiming that Trump sent hundreds of emails about White House business to contact “White House aides, Cabinet officials and her assistant," an apparent violation of the Presidential Record Act. The report does not indicate if the emails contained any classified or sensitive government information.

Gowdy said in the letter that Trump’s use of personal email may “implicate the Presidential Records Act and other security and recordkeeping requirements,” and set a Dec. 5 deadline to respond to the request for more information.

“In light of the importance and necessity of preserving the public record and doing so in a manner that is reflective of relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, the Committee must assess whether the White House took adequate steps to archive Ms. Trump’s emails and prevent a recurrence,” Gowdy wrote in the letter.

 

[SHaYap]

~

 

~

Daddy made me do it ... I didn't wanna do it ...

I did nothing wrong ...

~

[RavenHawk]

13 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

I was born in the era the Democrats held an overwhelming majority in the House for forty years, and the Senate, twenty-six of those years until the '80s. I'm starting to think that was a good thing. While the Senate began changing hands in the '80s, the house remained firmly in Democrat hands until 1995.

And that was the time of Johnson’s War on Poverty and except for a brief moment under Reagan, we were losing to the Plantation.   …Or were we?  Was that the intent in the first place?  Was the War on Poverty just another salvo of Fundamental Change?  It didn’t do us any good overall.  And the Civil Rights movement only masked what was really going on.

 

To get anything done, compromise was the order of the day, to be able to over-ride a Presidential veto. The Democrats never felt completely disenfranchised from national government. One Party rule has polarized politics to such an extent, cooperation is anathema in most cases, now.

There is no compromising with Socialism.  Our party system has been utterly ruined by Socialism.  Socialism had been actively taking over the Democratic Party since the 1930s.  The whole point of the bicameral, two-Party system was gridlock.  Only when compromise was made, the really important things got through.  But Socialism has completely usurped the Democrat Party and has been working on the Republican.  True Democrats are now mostly Independents or Republicans.  As Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me.”  Compromising with Socialism, for example, is like aid for illegals for building a wall.  Giving in to Socialist demands to secure public assistance for illegals already here, and then we’ll talk about a wall later.  When later comes, Socialists say, “what wall?”  It’s time to turn the tables on Socialists.

 

When either rules completely, there is no moderation of excesses from Left or Right, no amelioration and mediation through compromise. Divided government is thus, a good thing, as the wishes and asperations of all the American people have, at least, a chance to be expressed and addressed. 

At this point, we need just a little excess from the Right just to balance things out.  I agree, divided government is best, but Socialism continues raising anarchy to get what they want, bypassing compromise.

 

We've lost the sense of political comradery that once existed, the genteel civility that was the usual order of the day. We could strongly disagree, but more good-naturedly. Now, political differences have become an unbridgeable chasm, with a take-no-prisoners animosity, the rule, not the exception.  

That is the Socialist game.  Conservatives are just too tolerant and accepting for their own good.  That is why Trump is so desirable because he takes on the Socialist game.  We need to take back our government and exercise Socialism from our system.  If we don’t, the backlash will swing things so far “Right” that nothing will change and we’ll just fracture into a spiral of flames.

[+Hammerclaw]

18 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And that was the time of Johnson’s War on Poverty and except for a brief moment under Reagan, we were losing to the Plantation.   …Or were we?  Was that the intent in the first place?  Was the War on Poverty just another salvo of Fundamental Change?  It didn’t do us any good overall.  And the Civil Rights movement only masked what was really going on.

 

 

 

 

 

There is no compromising with Socialism.  Our party system has been utterly ruined by Socialism.  Socialism had been actively taking over the Democratic Party since the 1930s.  The whole point of the bicameral, two-Party system was gridlock.  Only when compromise was made, the really important things got through.  But Socialism has completely usurped the Democrat Party and has been working on the Republican.  True Democrats are now mostly Independents or Republicans.  As Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me.”  Compromising with Socialism, for example, is like aid for illegals for building a wall.  Giving in to Socialist demands to secure public assistance for illegals already here, and then we’ll talk about a wall later.  When later comes, Socialists say, “what wall?”  It’s time to turn the tables on Socialists.

 

 

 

 

 

At this point, we need just a little excess from the Right just to balance things out.  I agree, divided government is best, but Socialism continues raising anarchy to get what they want, bypassing compromise.

 

 

 

 

 

That is the Socialist game.  Conservatives are just too tolerant and accepting for their own good.  That is why Trump is so desirable because he takes on the Socialist game.  We need to take back our government and exercise Socialism from our system.  If we don’t, the backlash will swing things so far “Right” that nothing will change and we’ll just fracture into a spiral of flames.

 

I

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's "our" government whatever party is in office. "They" are our fellow Americans whatever party they provisionally support. Contrary to accepted belief, most Americans vote their hearts and minds--not a straight party ticket. Although a Republican, there are many things about Democrat ideology I admire and respect. Contrawise, there are certain things about Republican ideology I abhor and detest.  Politicians, behind the scenes, are much the same way. Bipartisanship was once not just hollow rhetoric, but a way to advance legislation advantageous to the country and the American people. The moderates in both parties hold the true reins of power, if they can muster the wherewithal to wield them. I want to see those days, again.

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[+Hammerclaw]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

.

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[RavenHawk]

11 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

That is the kind of thing I would see as a risk with unsecured emails.

Like I said, it drives investigators crazy.  But in this case, how do you communicate with everyone when not everyone has access to a secure server?  Is it known if any kind of common encryption was used?  Anyway, those emails have already been looked at and have been cleared.  Nothing classified.  It wasn’t a huge mistake.  Like I had said, it can take years to learn what information combined becomes classified.  At the same time, being involved with the Trump Empire, security is not something unknown.

 

At least HRC's experience gave us plenty of warning  that these things can be hacked. 

No, she didn’t.  We already knew these servers were vulnerable.  Most people’s home computer have been hacked as it is.  Hilary did us no favors.

 

It may seem innocent, but I seriously hope a lesson was learned.   

The vast majority of it across the workforce is innocent or unintentional.  This is an Administrative correction.  All those that Ivanka communicates with need to be on a secure server or at least some form of encryption.  This is nowhere near similar to what Hilary did.

[RoofGardener]

On 11/20/2018 at 9:04 AM, Farmer77 said:

No its clearly not an apples to apples situation. Neglecting to follow the rules of email use after email use becoming a central theme in the 2016 campaign however is a clear example of the monarchical attitude the Trumps have brought into the White House.

Remind me again.. which official elected or appointed government office does she occupy ? 

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's "our" government whatever party is in office.

Well, Conservatives believe that the government belongs to the people.  The Progs believe that the people belong to the government.  Or that is the Deplorables.  The ruling elite are exempt.

 

"They" are our fellow Americans whatever party they provisionally support.

The oath of Presidency includes that part to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign *AND* domestic.  Socialism is anti-Constitution.  That creates some conundrum.

 

Contrary to accepted belief, most Americans vote their hearts and minds--not a straight party ticket.

I used to think that way.  I’ve been burned every time I voted for a Prog.  I’ve been burned by Republicans too, but not by the same frequency.  But I’d take the most corrupt Rino over the most moderate Socialist any day.  I’ll only vote a straight ticket anymore.  Better to be screwed by one ideology rather than two.

 

Although a Republican, there are many things about Democrat ideology I admire and respect.

The ideology is so tainted, that any ideas that can benefit this nation are not core Socialist.  They are only used as window dressing.  Sort of like that really ugly kid you tie a steak around his neck so the dogs will play with him…

 

Contrawise, there are certain things about Republican ideology I abhor and detest. 

I agree but this is where the division between Republican and Conservative comes in.  Republicans are tainted with Socialism.  Conservatives are the only true vestige left of the original political system.

 

Politicians, behind the scenes, are much the same way. Bipartisanship was once not just hollow rhetoric, but a way to advance legislation advantageous to the country and the American people. The moderates in both parties hold the true reins of power, if they can muster the wherewithal to wield them. I want to see those days, again.

There are no more moderates in the Progressive Party.  That’s why it’s the Progressive Party (American Socialism).  When the original concept was liberal (Federalist) vs conservative (anti-Federalist), one knew that both sides had the best interest of the nation at heart despite the differences.  That is no longer the case because of the onset of Socialism.  It is the rigor mortis of a dying system.  As long as this is the case, bipartisanship overall, is near impossible.  And it won’t return until we settle the Socialist issue.  Either we return to the classical liberal vs conservative or we relinquish control and do away with the Constitution and become a one-party system, namely Socialism.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

The vast majority of it across the workforce is innocent or unintentional.  This is an Administrative correction.  All those that Ivanka communicates with need to be on a secure server or at least some form of encryption.  This is nowhere near similar to what Hilary did.

Didn't say it was or that Hillary deserved any credit for raising public awareness.  As you pointed out, innocent comments can be used to do ill.  If Ivanka had emailed the VP's wife and several cabinet secretaries' wives to plan a personal lunch for them at such a time and place, that would be viewed as non-governmental and just family agenda.  But I bet you can imagine what could have happened if somebody antithetical to the government intercepted that email.  It is unlikely that all of those women are as tightly guarded and monitored as their husbands. Likewise if she had innocently said, I'm going to drop the kids off, see you in an hour, it could be dangerous for them.  That is why I hope a lesson was learned before someone gets injured.  How about all of those Antifa people, some of them have to be computer nerds, right?

[Tatetopa]

19 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Well, Conservatives believe that the government belongs to the people. 

And the we all share it equally?  That seems very socialist.  Anything we hold in common must be socialist.   It just seems like socialism encompasses everything.  No form of government is free of it. How do you relate or cooperate with other people in a society without some form of socialism?

[RavenHawk]

19 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Didn't say it was or that Hillary deserved any credit for raising public awareness.  As you pointed out, innocent comments can be used to do ill.  If Ivanka had emailed the VP's wife and several cabinet secretaries' wives to plan a personal lunch for them at such a time and place, that would be viewed as non-governmental and just family agenda.  But I bet you can imagine what could have happened if somebody antithetical to the government intercepted that email.  It is unlikely that all of those women are as tightly guarded and monitored as their husbands. Likewise if she had innocently said, I'm going to drop the kids off, see you in an hour, it could be dangerous for them.  That is why I hope a lesson was learned before someone gets injured.  How about all of those Antifa people, some of them have to be computer nerds, right?

Just think about what you are implying.  Anyone who sends out email is in danger.  At some point, the low threat level has to be tolerated.  This is not what Hilary did.  Again, it wouldn’t hurt to have everyone Ivanka would communicate with dealing with family itineraries be protected by encryption.  Those Antifa people already have addresses of various Congress and Cabinet members.

[RavenHawk]

20 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

And the we all share it equally?  That seems very socialist.  Anything we hold in common must be socialist.   It just seems like socialism encompasses everything.  No form of government is free of it. How do you relate or cooperate with other people in a society without some form of socialism?

That’s a misconception of Socialism.  It is not the equal sharing of resources.  Socialism is forcing redistribution.  Taking the fruit of labor from some and giving it to others.  It’s not just the redistribution of wealth but also the forcing uniformity of thought and violation of one’s beliefs.  That is the furthest from sharing and more into coercion.  The only thing people share in common in Socialism is their labor.  Not the fruit of it, just the labor they offer to the state.  You cooperate with other people in respect and respect is Socialist-free.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

Well, Conservatives believe that the government belongs to the people.  The Progs believe that the people belong to the government.  Or that is the Deplorables.  The ruling elite are exempt.

 

 

 

 

 

The oath of Presidency includes that part to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign *AND* domestic.  Socialism is anti-Constitution.  That creates some conundrum.

 

 

 

 

 

I used to think that way.  I’ve been burned every time I voted for a Prog.  I’ve been burned by Republicans too, but not by the same frequency.  But I’d take the most corrupt Rino over the most moderate Socialist any day.  I’ll only vote a straight ticket anymore.  Better to be screwed by one ideology rather than two.

 

 

 

 

 

The ideology is so tainted, that any ideas that can benefit this nation are not core Socialist.  They are only used as window dressing.  Sort of like that really ugly kid you tie a steak around his neck so the dogs will play with him…

 

 

 

 

 

I agree but this is where the division between Republican and Conservative comes in.  Republicans are tainted with Socialism.  Conservatives are the only true vestige left of the original political system.

 

 

 

 

 

There are no more moderates in the Progressive Party.  That’s why it’s the Progressive Party (American Socialism).  When the original concept was liberal (Federalist) vs conservative (anti-Federalist), one knew that both sides had the best interest of the nation at heart despite the differences.  That is no longer the case because of the onset of Socialism.  It is the rigor mortis of a dying system.  As long as this is the case, bipartisanship overall, is near impossible.  And it won’t return until we settle the Socialist issue.  Either we return to the classical liberal vs conservative or we relinquish control and do away with the Constitution and become a one-party system, namely Socialism.

 

Tell me, when you reach that age, will you make a stand against Socialism and refuse to accept Social Security?

[RavenHawk]

23 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Tell me, when you reach that age, will you make a stand against Socialism and refuse to accept Social Security?

For one, that is stupid.  And no, I will not.  And this is why.  I am vested in SS and I am entitled to what *I* put in.  My 401 and other investments will supplement.  It was not my choice, but it was foisted on me by government decree.  This is not a program that you can just end.  For better or worse, the government painted itself into a corner with this obligation.  It will take time and effort to wean people off it.  SS was just meant as a temporary stopgap anyway, but some 80 years later, it is still around.  Other solutions will need to be put in place and give people coming into the workforce the option of what they want to do.  SS will end when the last person receiving benefits dies.  My grandfather always walked around with a wad of money in his pocket (his SS).  In our youth we would always hit him up for a buck or two, so we could buy candy or something.  When I start collecting, I hope that will be enough to pay my bills.  I’m not going to have the same money clip full.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

Just think about what you are implying.  Anyone who sends out email is in danger.  At some point, the low threat level has to be tolerated.  This is not what Hilary did.  Again, it wouldn’t hurt to have everyone Ivanka would communicate with dealing with family itineraries be protected by encryption.  Those Antifa people already have addresses of various Congress and Cabinet members.

I am implying that it is dangerous.  Yes indeed I can be hacked, but nobody cares about me, the free world would not shudder if something did happen to me.  With me, the level of risk is low because I am inconsequential; not because I am encrypted, but because    I am not a valuable target to anyone.  If you don't have a secure computer network then you use a secure phone until you do have a secure network and not a cell phone.  I would think a secure network would be one of the first priorities of a new administration..