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

[apdst]

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.

Evidence of a crime was found by the FBI. The only thing that needs to happen, is file charges, then prosecute.

 

[Athanasius68]

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.

The honesty is that the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION concluded that she had broke the law, but that the violation was of such insignificance no reasonable prosecutor would bother bringing charges.

The allegations against Mrs. Clinton were far more grievious than anything said of Mrs. Trump.

 

[Irwin Corey]

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

Bull ****! But rest well with that fantasy … keeps the monsters from under your bed and out of your closet. :roll:

 

[Irwin Corey]

The honesty is that the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION concluded that she had broke the law, but that the violation was of such insignificance no reasonable prosecutor would bother bringing charges.

The allegations against Mrs. Clinton were far more grievious than anything said of Mrs. Trump.

The truth is and (in HRC's case) and always was they both, through bad advice and arrogance ****ed up. But not to the point they should be prosecuted. Ivanka's transgression shows up the absurdity of the Gowdy investigation.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

let's look and see

Fine. Lets start an open ended investigation on everyone who works for the government and see what we can find. Why be prejudice. Treat everyone equally. Only after they have been cleared which could take a decade can they start doing their job. Oh and we will need a 75% tax on everyone's income to pay for these witch hunts.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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.

Then the Democratic House should investigate her use of private email as soon as they take control in January, and hold her to the exact same level of responsibility to which they held Hillary Clinton.

If Ivanka broke the law, she should be held legally responsible.

 

[poweRob]

You always ask this like a parrot in every thread.

It is a derailing tactic which is much easier than actually reading and developing ones own opinion on something.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Then the Democratic House should investigate her use of private email as soon as they take control in January, and hold her to the exact same level of responsibility to which they held Hillary Clinton.

If Ivanka broke the law, she should be held legally responsible.

And waste another 8 million American bucks to not prosecute her?

No thanks!

Let's just drop the Ivanka - HRC email fiasco altogether.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The honesty is that the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION concluded that she had broke the law, but that the violation was of such insignificance no reasonable prosecutor would bother bringing charges.

Not quite. The FBI found evidence of what MIGHT HAVE BEEN a crime, but the Justice Department determined that there was no reasonable prospect for a conviction.

Now I will admit that the "reasonable" in that is related to the grievousness of the alleged offence, and that the more serious an alleged offence then the higher the chance of an acquittal would have to be before the balance tips towards non-prosecution.

As to whether or not the allegations against Ms. Clinton that are made by the Republicans are HONESTLY believed by the Republican leadership, I need only point out that the number of follow-up investigations launched by the US Senate and/or the US House of Representatives whilst the Republicans had majority control over both has been exactly ZERO.

The allegations against Mrs. Clinton were far more grievious than anything said of Mrs. Trump.[/QUOTE]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Then the Democratic House should investigate her use of private email as soon as they take control in January, and hold her to the exact same level of responsibility to which they held Hillary Clinton.

If Ivanka broke the law, she should be held legally responsible.

I agree.

However if there is no reasonable prospect of conviction then she shouldn't be prosecuted AND if she is not prosecuted then she is entitled to the same presumption of innocence that Ms. Clinton is entitled to (and vice versa).

Do you agree with that?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I agree.

However if there is no reasonable prospect of conviction then she shouldn't be prosecuted AND if she is not prosecuted then she is entitled to the same presumption of innocence that Ms. Clinton is entitled to (and vice versa).

Do you agree with that?

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. However, if the law was broken, that information should be taken to a Grand Jury (5th Amendment right) to determine if the charges should be tried.

 

[apdst]

Bull ****! But rest well with that fantasy … keeps the monsters from under your bed and out of your closet. :roll:

The Tarmac Meeting was obstruction of justice.

 

[apdst]

Then the Democratic House should investigate her use of private email as soon as they take control in January, and hold her to the exact same level of responsibility to which they held Hillary Clinton.

If Ivanka broke the law, she should be held legally responsible.

That wouldn't be holding Ivanka to the same level of responsibility as Hillary Clinton.

 

[Irwin Corey]

The Tarmac Meeting was obstruction of justice.

No way to know for sure.<-Period

If there was AND it was obstruction Clinton(s) AND Lynch would have been prosecuted. Since there wasn't even a charge it's only speculation on YOUR part.

The ONLY thing that can be said for sure … it was and ill advised meeting.<-period

 

[apdst]

No way to know for sure.<-Period If there was AND it was obstruction Clinton(s) AND Lynch would have been prosecuted. Since there wasn't even a charge it's only speculation on YOUR part.

The ONLY thing that can be said for sure … it was and ill advised meeting.<-period

There needs to be an indepth investigation to find out. Probably won't be hard to prove.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I think she needs to delete all the evidence which is the proper procedure for this type of situation.

She forgot to set up the server in her bathroom.

 

[hanger4]

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 Ivanka is guilty of sending receiving classified information and or failing to properly archive via the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act and even the Freedom of Information Act what penalties should be levied ??

 

[Mr Person]

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 Ivanka is guilty of sending receiving classified information and or failing to properly archive via the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act and even the Freedom of Information Act what penalties should be levied ??

^
"It's a trap!"





That rather depends on the FBI's assessment of whether her case is more like Hillary's - where they said she was negligent but that they'd never recommended charges in those circumstances, having only done so where aggravating factors existed - or whether it is like those cases in which they recommended charges.

Or rather, it depends on what Trump's AG does with whatever recommendation or lack thereof from the FBI, since an FBI recommendation is not binding on the AG's office.





Of course, no matter what happens there, there's still the basic fact of massive hypocrisy on the position of anyone who made a big deal out of Hillary but is acting like this doesn't matter without it having even be investigated (despite the seven+ investigations into Benghazi that were really into Hillary's emails). Even worse, they're still pushing Hillary investigations.

But then, too many people seem to think hypocrisy is only a problem if someone on 'the left' is accused of it.



Bottom line: no matter how one wishes to play the hypocrisy game, there is no reasonable argument that this should not be investigated. They need to determine what happened.

 

[Irwin Corey]

There needs to be an indepth investigation to find out. Probably won't be hard to prove.

I would be impossible to prove. The only two people that know what was said are the two people you want to investigate. You wouldn't believe them no matter what they said.

 

[hanger4]

^
"It's a trap!"





That rather depends on the FBI's assessment of whether her case is more like Hillary's - where they said she was negligent but that they'd never recommended charges in those circumstances, having only done so where aggravating factors existed - or whether it is like those cases in which they recommended charges.

Or rather, it depends on what Trump's AG does with whatever recommendation or lack thereof from the FBI, since an FBI recommendation is not binding on the AG's office.





Of course, no matter what happens there, there's still the basic fact of massive hypocrisy on the position of anyone who made a big deal out of Hillary but is acting like this doesn't matter without it having even be investigated (despite the seven+ investigations into Benghazi that were really into Hillary's emails). Even worse, they're still pushing Hillary investigations.

But then, too many people seem to think hypocrisy is only a problem if someone on 'the left' is accused of it.



Bottom line: no matter how one wishes to play the hypocrisy game, there is no reasonable argument that this should not be investigated. They need to determine what happened.

It's also hypocrisy (actually double standards) on those accusing IK without facts (at this time) while ignoring the facts concerning HRC.

 

[Mr Person]

If Ivanka is guilty of sending receiving classified information and or failing to properly archive via the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act and even the Freedom of Information Act what penalties should be levied ??

^
"It's a trap!"





That rather depends on the FBI's assessment of whether her case is more like Hillary's - where they said she was negligent but that they'd never recommended charges in those circumstances, having only done so where aggravating factors existed - or whether it is like those cases in which they recommended charges.

Or rather, it depends on what Trump's AG does with whatever recommendation or lack thereof from the FBI, since an FBI recommendation is not binding on the AG's office.





Of course, no matter what happens there, there's still the basic fact of massive hypocrisy on the position of anyone who made a big deal out of Hillary but is acting like this doesn't matter without it having even be investigated (despite the seven+ investigations into Benghazi that were really into Hillary's emails). Even worse, they're still pushing Hillary investigations.

But then, too many people seem to think hypocrisy is only a problem if someone on 'the left' is accused of it.



Bottom line: no matter how one wishes to play the hypocrisy game, there is no reasonable argument that this should not be investigated. They need to determine what happened.

It's also hypocrisy (actually double standards) on those accusing IK without facts (at this time) while ignoring the facts concerning HRC.

Which "those"?

You replied directly to the OP, not anyone in between. The OP doesn't claim to know that she is in fact guilty. Instead, the OP makes the case that an investigation is required and along the way, amusingly but truthfully notes that the GOP will just make (is making) it about Hillary....

And then you replied to my remarks to you, which again noted the case for having an investigation.

 

[apdst]

I would be impossible to prove. The only two people that know what was said are the two people you want to investigate. You wouldn't believe them no matter what they said.

After Lynch was forced to roll over on Clinton, it would be a slam dunk.

 

[Irwin Corey]

After Lynch was forced to roll over on Clinton, it would be a slam dunk.

And how is she forced?

 

[apdst]

And how is she forced?

Charge her with some unrelated crime; investigate her family. There's dirt, somewhere.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Charge her with some unrelated crime; investigate her family. There's dirt, somewhere.

Ever hear of "probable cause", you're fishing. NEVER happen.