Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Government Businesses United States

Democrats Intend To Probe Ivanka Trump's Use of Personal Email In Next Congress (go.com) 407

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

The Oversight committee has jurisdiction over records and transparency laws, and Cummings helped write an update to the Presidential and Federal Records Acts that was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2014. That measure mandates that every federal employee, including the President, forward any message about official business sent using a private account to the employee's official email account within 20 days. "We launched a bipartisan investigation last year into White House officials' use of private email accounts for official business, but the White House never gave us the information we requested," Cummings, D-Md., noted. "We need those documents to ensure that Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and other officials are complying with federal records laws and there is a complete record of the activities of this Administration. My goal is to prevent this from happening again -- not to turn this into a spectacle the way Republicans went after Hillary Clinton. My main priority as Chairman will be to focus on the issues that impact Americans in their everyday lives."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats Intend To Probe Ivanka Trump's Use of Personal Email In Next Congress More

Democrats Intend To Probe Ivanka Trump's Use of Personal Email In Next Congress

Comments Filter:

  • Fair is fair (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:12PM (#57676306)
    (nt)

    • Re:Fair is fair (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:15PM (#57676322) Homepage Journal

      By that do you mean that it would be perfectly fair for Ivanka to argue "what, at this point, does it matter?" Or maybe that it would be fair of the FBI to recommend against charges (despite admitting that a crime was committed) like they did with Hillary?

      That would be fair.

      • Re:Fair is fair (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nwaack ( 3482871 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:17PM (#57676338)
        Yep. She should take one for the team and say that she'll go to jail as long as Hilary goes first.

        • Re:Fair is fair (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:22PM (#57676372) Homepage Journal

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

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

            So... what you're saying is we're gonna just have a bunch of loud grandstanding and talking past each other while ignoring real issues?

            • As long as it keeps the congresscritters busy and not meddling in the rest of our lives, who could complain?

              • Sometimes I think the founders designed the systen to keep the bossy people busy arguing so they couldn't actually effectively boss the rest of us around. It took over 200 years for them to manage to become really bothersome.

      • Re:Fair is fair (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:23PM (#57676380)
        I don't think either is a big deal, but as for the FBI each situation may be different so they should investigate both. They didn't find an issue with Clinton's use, but that doesn't mean the Ivanka scenario is the same.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

          They didn't find an issue with Clinton's use

          They did find an issue with it. They said it was illegal. They just didn't think it was a big enough infraction to warrant formal criminal charges. Law enforcement agencies prosecute only a small fraction of crimes.

          • They didn't find an issue with Clinton's use

            They did find an issue with it. They said it was illegal. They just didn't think it was a big enough infraction to warrant formal criminal charges. Law enforcement agencies prosecute only a small fraction of crimes.

            Well that is a bit disingenuous. Comey actually said that he could not find a prosecutor willing to take the case. And since the Department of Justice would have to launch that prosecution, it was the Attorney General that let the people down. I will say that the former director of the CIA was actually going to be prosecuted for less during Clinton's administration but the president granted the former director a pardon before prosecution was fully under way.

        • Re:Fair is fair (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @10:45PM (#57677830) Homepage
          As long as the FBI follows the same procedure as with Hillary:
          1. An exoneration letter is drafted in advance.
          2. Immunity is given to top Trump aides (and they're allowed to sit in on the interview).
          3. The interview isn't recorded.
          4. The lead official doesn't attend.
          5. The #2 official's family has received large donations from Trump's political friends.
          6. Prior to the interview, the lead official meets privately on plane tarmac with Trump's wife (to discuss grandchildren).
          7. Main interviewer has expressed disdain for Trump's opponents, such as discussing an "insurance plan" with higher-ups to undermine them. If the same terms aren't offered...Was Clinton's interview process unfair?
          8. As long as they believe Ivanka didn't intend any harm, she's let off the hook for any violations.
          9. If Ivanka becomes a target, it should be referred to as a "matter" not an investigation.
          10. Trump aides should be permitted to destroy subpoenaed or relevant public records and wipe relevant servers with a cloth or something.

      • By that do you mean that it would be perfectly fair for Ivanka to argue "what, at this point, does it matter?"

        Sure. That would be a good argument after a few years have gone by and she is being asked the same questions over and over again, by committee after committee.

        Or maybe that it would be fair of the FBI to recommend against charges

        Sure. That would be fair. It is unlikely she intended to break the law, and as far as we know no harm was done. The criminal justice system has more important things to do. But congress doesn't.

      • Re:Fair is fair (Score:5, Informative)

        by meglon ( 1001833 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @07:42PM (#57677056)
        She'll only be able to offer those up after 2 years and 4 months of investigations into EVERYTHING that anyone suggests, including all of her business dealings with China, and how her trademarks got approved days after the China's government got beneficial treatment from her father.

        There were 8 investigations COMPLETED prior to the house investigation, and none of them found any wrongdoing. The house investigation was 2 years and 4 months; it was longer than the congressional probes into 9/11, Watergate, the JFK assassination and Pearl Harbor. During Bush Jr's terms, there were 39 attacks or attempted attacks on embassies or staff, with 87 deaths. The cumulative amount of time spent on congressional investigations of these 39 attacks: 0 mins.

        On Fox news (Sept 29, 2015), Kevin McCarthy (Republican) stated: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?”

        The house Benghazi investigation was never anything more than the GOP abusing their offices to damage Hillary in the upcoming presidential race because they knew she was running. Anyone who's not a complete fucking idiot could see that, but sadly, we have a lot of complete fucking idiots in this country.

      • By that do you mean that it would be perfectly fair for Ivanka to argue "what, at this point, does it matter?" Or maybe that it would be fair of the FBI to recommend against charges (despite admitting that a crime was committed) like they did with Hillary?

        Every Trump rally erupts in a chorus of LOCK HER UP. Sort of seems like it does still matter, at least to the president and his base. Or, maybe T is just using a candidate, that lost 2 years ago and holds no political office and isn't running for a political office, as a boogeyman. I dunno. Maybe I'm overthinking this.

        But anyway, assuming you voted Trump / Republican, aren't you upset that a R controlled house, senate and exec failed to indict CROOKED HILARY? For 2 years they controlled every branch of gove

    • Or, more to the point, what goes around, comes around. Trump made Hilary Clinton's email issues a major part of his campaign. Trump yakked about it daily. It's disingenuous -- or, at the *very* least, hypocritical -- for Ivanka to simply say, "I didn't know it was wrong." Literally, how could she not know?

  • Before everyone goes crazy again... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:18PM (#57676342) Homepage

    To be clear, it's not necessarily a crime that a private server existed, or that it was used for official business. Usually, any criminal statutes require knowledge and intent of the crime being committed.

    For example, even if there is classified information on this server, that would be a security violation, but not a crime unless someone intended to mishandle the information. Just because someone "should have known better" does not actually mean they're guilty.

    How about we focus on fixing the violations, get everything into compliance, and move on with business as usual, eh? Just like we should have done with Clinton's incident...

    • Re:Before everyone goes crazy again... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:23PM (#57676386)

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

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

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

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

      • Re:Before everyone goes crazy again... (Score:5, Informative)

        by arbiter1 ( 1204146 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:40PM (#57676464)
        Leaving any classified info in any unsecured location is instant violation, there is No Gray area in the law. I remember someone was interviewed about classified info. He said if he left a classified document on his desk in his off at say the pentagon and left the room. Didn't lock it up in his office safe, that would be grounds for his clearance to be revoked no if's and's or buts. There was a guy took pictures inside a sub which was listed as confidential, the lowest level of classification so he could show his kids/grand kids what he did. He got a YEAR in prison for that and they were easy on him. Clinton sent and received hundreds classified documents through her server and she can't claim ignorance to it as she knew she would be sent that kinda material as head of state department.

        • Leaving any classified info in any unsecured location is instant violation, there is No Gray area in the law

          That's not true. It's possible that one doesn't know it's classified, and/or that it was an inadvertent accident. As I mentioned elsewhere, H didn't receive proper training, and the markings do resemble those used in legal documents.

          Now if somebody is properly trained AND accidentally expose or put-at-risk classified materials, the legal standard is "gross negligence", which is typically a pretty high

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

      Funny, when I complained that I had never even seen the traffic sign I was cited for not complying with, the judge said that was no excuse, I _should_ have known! Ignorance of the law is only a valid excuse for cops, _never_ a valid excuse for lawbreakers!

    • I do believe that the act of moving a piece of classified information from a secure environment/system to an insecure environment/system is a felony. Just the single act is a felony.. Regardless of any other circumstances involved. And that very act was done 1,000s of times by Hillary and her people.
      Something as simple as leaving it on top of your desk/displayed on your screen and walking away can be viewed as a violation.
      At least that is what I got out of my security briefings.

      Now someone that breaks t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by meglon ( 1001833 )
        Your two cents isn't worth shit when the FBI and Justice Department think your an idiot and disagree with you.

      • Re:Before everyone goes crazy again... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @10:46PM (#57677834) Homepage

        You might want to take your refresher briefings, then.

        The things you describe usually fall into a lot of nice labels like "violations", "infractions", "procedural errors", and the like, but they very rarely end up as "felonies", because the applicable statute [cornell.edu] is one that includes that high bar of intent, by stipulating that the perpetrator must "knowingly" commit the act.

        Indeed, that "felony" label is typically only reserved for someone who's about to be indicted for a lot of other related crimes, and for good reason: The security community has worked hard over the last hundred years or so to develop a culture of forgiving loyalty. Honest mistakes are usually forgiven, and written off with a minor warning, removal of access, or removal of clearance, but usually no attempt to pursue criminal charges or other long-lasting ramifications. The system intentionally errs on the side of caution, preferring to let even the most egregious violations pass rather than risk prosecuting an innocent mistake and creating a potential traitor. In doing so, there's a much greater chance that someone will come forward and report violations, rather than hide in fear that they might be held liable.

        I spent a good number of years working in the defense industry, and I've seen plenty (probably a 3-digit number) of "spills", "slips", and "mistakes". I've only seen one person actually be accused of having that criminal level of intent, though... and that was mostly due to him leaving the country immediately after committing several violations. If he ever comes back, I'm sure there will be plenty of interesting discussions including that "felony" label.

        Justice is a funny thing, in that the reality usually matters less than the perception. In matters that are necessarily kept secret, there will seldom be satisfaction that justice was actually served. Justice is only assured when there is faith that the judicial process is always applied consistently. That's precisely why I think Mrs. Trump's server should also be subject to a full investigation, with all the same review, and the same fussing over the implications of whatever dozen problems are actually found. I'd expect the same process if a Pentagon official were found to run his own email server, too, or even a lowly base commander in the field. Like it or not, a precedent has been set, and it must now be applied evenly.

        That said, I'd also prefer to do without the media circus that surrounded the Clinton investigation. This is now routine. A personal email server was found that might hold sensitive or classified information, so we go through the process. It's not newsworthy, it's not political, and it's not something that should skew public perception. Fix the problems, give a good stern warning to whatever moron approved the idea, and let's get on with running the country, shall we?

  • ORANGE MAN BAD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:20PM (#57676356)

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

    • Re:ORANGE MAN BAD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:33PM (#57676436)
      So your solution is "Stop reminding me that the orange man is bad!" rather than "Can't the orange man STOP being bad?"

    • Re:ORANGE MAN BAD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shilly ( 142940 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:46PM (#57676506)

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

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

      Well, to be fair, ORANGE MAN is pretty fucking bad. I mean, not just a little bit bad, but extraordinarily (and hilariously) bad. As in bad for the ages.

  • Was anything classified? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sniper98G ( 1078397 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:22PM (#57676376)

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

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

    These things are not comparable.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nwaack ( 3482871 )

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

      Because ORANGE MAN BADDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111. I had to scroll through about 10 of these posts from some of my ultra-liberal friends on social media. They were just frothing-at-the-mouth livid about it. I would bet that not a single one them read anything more than the headline.

    • For one, H was not properly trained on security matters. She somehow missed the class(es). She had a "briefing", but a briefing is not the formal class.

      And many legal documents use "(c)" to mean a sequential list (a, b, c, d, etc.). See link below.

      I don't know who to blame for her missing the class, but typically I would NOT hold a CEO responsible for mis-managing a security training roster. The head of security should probably be held accountable. They should have a tracking system in place. Jail that guy

      • For one, H was not properly trained on security matters. She somehow missed the class(es). She had a "briefing", but a briefing is not the formal class.

        Yeah, that's a lie. Why else would she have specifically told staff not to use private e-mail [cnbc.com]? She knew fully what she was doing was wrong - and even sent out reminders to staff to NOT do what she was doing.

  • Lock her up!!!
    Lock her up!!!
    Lock her up!!!

  • Release her pop's tax returns first (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:48PM (#57676516)
    and go after him for violations of the emoluments clause. Then we can worry about little things like this. I don't want political theater designed to keep Clinton Democrats busy, I want the rule of law restored.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sexconker ( 1179573 )

      The President has no obligation to release their tax returns.

      There are several clauses relating to emoluments. Regardless, Trump is in violation of none of them. Unless you can show he's receiving a title or favor from a foreign state, there's nothing there. Having foreign-based income doesn't count, by the way. Further, even if a sitting President is found to be in violation, Congress will just grant an exception.

      Try thinking. It might hurt at first, but you'll get the hang of it eventually.

      • Re:Release her pop's tax returns first (Score:4, Interesting)

        by meglon ( 1001833 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @08:04PM (#57677164)
        Yet the judges seem to think that the lawsuits against him have enough merit to continue. And when he goes through deposition, his tax returns will come out. Anyone with a clue can see what's going on, which begs the question... why are you such a fucking clueless idiot?

      • Re:Release her pop's tax returns first (Score:4, Insightful)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @08:29PM (#57677272) Journal

        There are several clauses relating to emoluments.

        There are three. Two of them apply to the president, one barring him from receiving foreign emoluments, one barring him from receiving anything other than his salary from the federal government or the states. Regardless, Trump is in violation of none of them.

        Federal District Judge Peter Messitte thinks there might be [npr.org].

        Further, even if a sitting President is found to be in violation, Congress will just grant an exception.

        That seems much less likely than it did 15 days ago.

      • when he's under investigation for violation of the emoluments clause. Which he will be soon. The Dems, assuming they have any backbone, will be nailing him to the wall over that. Not because of partisanship (though they could do with a bit more of that, ever since that bastard Gingrich started open war in the House the Dems have been getting their asses kicked and the country is much worse off for it) but because having a president who can and will be bought off by foreign powers is terrifying. That's somet

  • Pretty sure handing over the House to the Democrats was a Trump operation. After all, they only just barley took it over so it can easily be reversed next election.

    On top of that while no-one was noticing, the Republicans gained three more senate seats so replacing RPG will be even easier and almost ensures they will maintain control of the Senate even through the next election cycle.

    While the Senate and Trump do what they like, the House will be spending the next two years in a competition for most insane

    • the Republicans gained three more senate seats so replacing RPG will be even easier and almost ensures they will maintain control of the Senate even through the next election cycle.

      Maybe two, maybe three. One is at a runoff. But the Democrats won the majority of seats up for grabs this year. Keep in mind, they had half their Senate seats up for election, the republicans only had 25%. And, in 2020 it's reversed. Esp. since Collins and a lot of other moderate Republicans are up. I imagine a democratic

      • The margins for this year vs. 2020 absolutely matter for both the house and the senate.

        Why? Because 2020 is a Presidential election year. More people will vote, and the candidates will be more aligned with their parties and the parties will work to support their respective candidates. Trump, being the incumbent, will be very hard to defeat, so his party will have a huge advantage.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 )

        Maybe two, maybe three. One is at a runoff. But the Democrats won the majority of seats up for grabs this year.

        They were expected to win more than they did.

        But it doesn't seem to matter. They already put whomever on the court.

        No, the Republicans put carefully considered and middle of the road SC candidates forward - because they thought it mattered and were expecting rational debate. Now they know none of that is true so expect the next candidate to really be a far right option, thanks to what the Democrat

        • They were expected to win more than they did

          Not according to polls. And not according to history. I mean, you have to go back to Nixon's impeachment^W resignation to get a similar bump.

          the Republicans put carefully considered and middle of the road SC candidates forward

          They're just drawing them from the Heritage Foundation list. That's all that's going to happen. And, I'm not sure who you think sits to the far-right compared to these people.

          Now, maybe Trump tries to put his sister on the court, if he t

          • They're just drawing them from the Heritage Foundation list. That's all that's going to happen.

            No, that is all that DID happen. And since they were savaged for those moderate candidates, they next one can be off-script. I wouldn't imagine Trump is prone to stick to a script for very long!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by meglon ( 1001833 )
          You are,truly and by far, a complete fucking idiot. In 2020 there's 21 GOP seats up compared to only 11 DNC. In 2022 another 22 GOP seats compared to 11 DNC. Seriously, do you even have a functioning brain cell left?
        • Middle of the road? That's a laugh. Gorsuch was, and really the best we could have hoped for coming from any Republican these days, and honestly I prefer him over Garland. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, was not even close to middle of the road. He's as extreme right as SCOTUS candidates get on every single issue. And he was nominated to fill a swing-voting Justice's seat, dooming us to a generation of rulings shitting all over the parts of the Constitution not related to guns and god. That, combined with leg

  • If absolutely nothing happened to her Majesty ( Hillary ) for the crap she pulled, how can they possibly make any demands here ?

    Also, last I checked, The First Lady, unlike the Secretary of State, has zero impact on official government affairs.

    My guess is they simply want to use it as leverage in case someone ever decides to hold Hillary reaponsible for something ( LOL ).

    Like that will ever happen.

  • Get it over with (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Koby77 ( 992785 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:52PM (#57676550)
    Just charge both Hillary and Ivanka now with violating Espionage Act and be done with it already. Let the chips fall where they may.

  • The previous administration made it clear (Score:3)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @06:49PM (#57676824)

    that this is allowed, if not expected. Moreover, the Trump family could easily destroy all the evidence during the investigation.

  • The fact people using administration messaging systems can receive messages from arbitrary Internet domains via comically insecure SMTP at will is what congress should be investigating.

  • If your for going after Ivanka - you MUST be in favor or going back after Hillary. Or your a FUCKING Hippocrate! They both basically did the same thing. Granted Hillary did it much worse! But both are criminal!

    LOCK THEM BOTH UP!

    It only proves BOTH parties are criminal and need to be expelled from government. Both the Democrats AND Republicans should be expelled - and no longer allowed to run our government in ANY fashion!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by meglon ( 1001833 )
      We had 28 months of Hillary being investigated (after 8 prior investigations on the same subject), and there were no charges. 28 months of Ivanka being investigated,and we'll see if there are any charges to be had. The hypocrites in this case would be all the whiny little bitches who foamed at the mouth for Hillary to be investigated (she was), but for Ivanka to not be investigated.

      What needs to happen is you to pull your head out of your ass and learn what words mean before using them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Success is something I will dress for when I get there, and not until.

Close