Exclusive: Ivanka Trump defends use of private email, brushes aside Mueller probe

[Xelor]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive...ivate-email-brushes-mueller/story?id=59455437

Thus far, the belief that Ivanka preserved all of her emails per Federal record keeping laws and transmitted no classified data appears to come from Ivanka herself, so there's zero reason to assume that she followed the law at all.

And since Republicans won't be able to address this issue without making it about Hillary Clinton, it's clear that only a Democratic-controlled House investigation is qualified to investigate Ivanka's use of private email accounts, along with everybody else in the Trump Administration who has done so. Every Republican/Conservative in this thread will make the issue about Clinton, thus proving my point that Republicans are unqualified to address the issue.

If someone's of a mind that there's value to driving Ivanka out of her gov't job, then a House investigation may be of some value. Otherwise, it's best left to an Inspector General or some LEO unit in the the gov't.

 

[apdst]

Proof of concept:

The first mention of Clinton in the thread:

You might start with "The Presidential Records Act" (Wikipedia is a good place to START learning about the situation).

If Ms. Trump DID NOT breach that act, then (most likely) Ms. Clinton didn't either.

If Ms. Trump DID breach that act, then whether Ms. Clinton did as well still has to be determined.

Whether the Republican leadership honestly believes that Ms. Clinton breached that act, is indicated by the number of investigations which the Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate have initiated into Ms. Clinton's conduct.

[HINT - The MORE investigations, the MORE likely it is that the Republicans honestly believe in their accusations and the FEWER investigations, the LESS likely it is that the Republicans honestly believe in their accusations. So far the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have initiated ZERO investigations. From the fact that the Republican majorities have initiated ZERO investigations, it is possible to deduce that there is (likely to be) ZERO likelihood that the Republicans honestly believe in their accusations.]

 

[apdst]

how do we know this
it would appear from accounts that she used a private family server rather than the government's when conducting the government's business
if my recollection is accurate, hillary did the same

What private server did Ivanka use?

 

[apdst]

Prove she did it to circumvent the law. You have no evidence her intention was to do that. Dishonest comments from you as usual.

If that's the case, then the Clinton email case should be re-opened and charges filed.

 

[Cardinal]

If someone's of a mind that there's value to driving Ivanka out of her gov't job, then a House investigation may be of some value. Otherwise, it's best left to an Inspector General or some LEO unit in the the gov't.

I have no problem with a combination of investigations in order to make certain that the truth comes out. One particular benefit to a House investigation is there is significantly more muscle backing it.

 

[apdst]

If that was relevant that would be a good point.

One of your Liberal buddies brought it up. Piss in his ear, not mine.

 

[Cardinal]

Further proof of concept:

Every Republican/Conservative in this thread will make the issue about Clinton, thus proving my point that Republicans are unqualified to address the issue.

If that's the case, then the Clinton email case should be re-opened and charges filed.

 

[apdst]

Did any of you give a damn before?

Lock her up!

Clinton actually committed a felony. You all gave her a free pass.

 

[markjs]

A thorough investigation is required to verify that all her email were, in fact, actually stored in a proper government service. Thus far the only reason we have to think that they were comes from Ivanka herself, who of course has zero credibility.



Ergo why a thorough investigation is required.

The GOP's idea of a "thorough" investigation is twofold.

If we're talking about a Democrat, a "thorough investigation, means no matter the evidence, continue the investigation as long and publicly as possible, and if forced to end the investigation, claim a weaponized FBI and DOJ protecting criminals.

If we're talking a GOP member, the GOP's standard operating procedure is, craft the result you want, then seek out witnesses to create the desired result of the investigation, ignoring or concealing wrongdoing.:roll:

 

[apdst]

Prove she did it to circumvent the law. You have no evidence her intention was to do that. Dishonest comments from you as usual.

No need. She mishandled classified material. That's a felony, by itself.

 

[apdst]

Further proof of concept:

First mention of Clinton:

You might start with "The Presidential Records Act" (Wikipedia is a good place to START learning about the situation).

If Ms. Trump DID NOT breach that act, then (most likely) Ms. Clinton didn't either.

If Ms. Trump DID breach that act, then whether Ms. Clinton did as well still has to be determined.

Whether the Republican leadership honestly believes that Ms. Clinton breached that act, is indicated by the number of investigations which the Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate have initiated into Ms. Clinton's conduct.

[HINT - The MORE investigations, the MORE likely it is that the Republicans honestly believe in their accusations and the FEWER investigations, the LESS likely it is that the Republicans honestly believe in their accusations. So far the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have initiated ZERO investigations. From the fact that the Republican majorities have initiated ZERO investigations, it is possible to deduce that there is (likely to be) ZERO likelihood that the Republicans honestly believe in their accusations.]

 

[Cardinal]

One of your Liberal buddies brought it up. Piss in his ear, not mine.

Point is that whether Ivanka used gmail, yahoomail, a private server, the Navajo code or smoke signals, a thorough House investigation will be required to verify if she followed Federal record keeping laws and transmitted classified data.

 

[Xelor]

I have no problem with a combination of investigations in order to make certain that the truth comes out. One particular benefit to a House investigation is there is significantly more muscle backing it.

Congressional investigations' primary value is political. Let professional investigators and prosecutors investigate violations of law.

 

[apdst]

Point is that whether Ivanka used gmail, yahoomail, a private server, the Navajo code or smoke signals, a thorough House investigation will be required to verify if she followed Federal record keeping laws and transmitted classified data.

As I said, I agree. The same standard should be applied to Democrats, in the future.

 

[Cardinal]

Congressional investigations' primary value is political. Let professional investigators and prosecutors investigate violations of law.

That is true, but sometimes that's where the momentum has to come from. And as I said, there's more muscle behind a Congressional committee than the IG, and an investigation based out of the DOJ can no longer be trusted.

 

[Athanasius68]

You might start with "The Presidential Records Act" (Wikipedia is a good place to START learning about the situation).

If Ms. Trump DID NOT breach that act, then (most likely) Ms. Clinton didn't either.

If Ms. Trump DID breach that act, then whether Ms. Clinton did as well still has to be determined.

Whether the Republican leadership honestly believes that Ms. Clinton breached that act, is indicated by the number of investigations which the Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate have initiated into Ms. Clinton's conduct.

[HINT - The MORE investigations, the MORE likely it is that the Republicans honestly believe in their accusations and the FEWER investigations, the LESS likely it is that the Republicans honestly believe in their accusations. So far the Republican majorities in the House and Senate have initiated ZERO investigations. From the fact that the Republican majorities have initiated ZERO investigations, it is possible to deduce that there is (likely to be) ZERO likelihood that the Republicans honestly believe in their accusations.]

Mr. Comey concluded that Mrs. Clinton broke the law. But he also said it was of such a minor nature that no reasonable prosecutor would bother with it if was just other obscure govt. employee.
And, as it might be recalled, when President Trump was talking about prosecuting Mrs. Clinton for this, many people hereabouts saw that as evidence of his dictatorial nature-- targeting his political opponents.

 

[justabubba]

What private server did Ivanka use?

one that was not the white house server when she used her personal email account
like hillary

 

[Praxas]

If that's the case, then the Clinton email case should be re-opened and charges filed.

It was already investigated and by GOP scum as well. You’re just pissed cause your comments are, as usual, dishonest. I’ve come to expect NO honesty from your comments.

 

[Verax]

I fail to see the difference here between Ivanka using a personal email account and Hillary using her own email server. In both cases the email server is non governmental and so the sending and receiving of emails occurs outside of government hardware. The only documentation the government would have automatically would be emails that are sent from or received from government email addresses in communication with Ivanka. For all of her emails to be saved with the government she would have to have her account synced with a government server. The only difference here is that Hillary controlled the private server and with Ivanka the server is with? ... I don't know I couldn't find any mention of who it is going through but it's not the government.

 

[Athanasius68]

If we're talking a GOP member, the GOP's standard operating procedure is, craft the result you want, then seek out witnesses to create the desired result of the investigation, ignoring or concealing wrongdoing.:roll:

Its not clear how this is reasonably concluded as directed toward the GOP. We have had Mueller for the past two years certainly not doing the above.
But it does describe to a "T" how the Clinton investigation was handled by the Obama Admin.

 

[Athanasius68]

At issue is that by using a private email account it's difficult (though I doubt impossible) to very that she followed Federal record keeping laws, and it's difficult (thought I doubt impossible) to verify that she didn't transmit classified data. That is why a thorough House investigation controlled by Democrats is needed.

Why? The Obama Admin investigated Mrs. Clinton handling of her emails. Why cant the Trump Admin investigate Mrs. Trump?

 

[Xelor]

That is true, but sometimes that's where the momentum has to come from. And as I said, there's more muscle behind a Congressional committee than the IG, and an investigation based out of the DOJ can no longer be trusted.

The only "momentum" LEOs need to investigate potential violations of the law is germane circumstantial evidence that the law(s) in question has been violated. The need more motivation than that to investigate something for which there's no such evidence but someone wants it investigated for the sake of being able to say "so and so is under investigation," and the only reason politicians want to say that is because they know the general public think of "under investigation" as essentially the same thing as "charged and guilty."

 

[Irwin Corey]

What law did she break?

Hillary? When you consider how much she was investigated with AbsaByGodLutely NO charges … NONE!

 

[Athanasius68]

If that was relevant that would be a good point.

It is highly relevent.

 

[apdst]

Hillary? When you consider how much she was investigated with AbsaByGodLutely NO charges … NONE!

She didn't charged because Lynch and Bill cut a deal.