Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are

from the winning-streak-continues dept

Making American Political Hypocrisy Great Again:

President Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has used a private email account to conduct and discuss official White House business dozens of times, his lawyer confirmed Sunday.

Kushner used the private account through his first nine months in government service, even as the president continued to criticize his opponent in the 2016 presidential election, Democrat Hillary Clinton, for her use of a private email account for government business.

And, because once is never enough:

Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to communicate with a member of President Trump’s administration, a watchdog group said Monday.

American Oversight obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that show Ivanka Trump, a senior White House adviser to her father, used a personal email account to contact Small Business Administration Administrator Linda McMahon in February.

It's not as though anyone isn't aware of their responsibility to use official government email accounts for official government business. There's a duty to preserve records that goes hand-in-hand with FOIA law. Those who choose to do business this way are either lazy or devious. And it doesn't necessarily have to be one or the other.

At this point, the criticisms that paved the way to Trump's win can almost all be levied against the new administration. All we're really waiting for is someone to show up with a birth certificate showing Donald Trump isn't a natural-born US citizen.

Clinton's excuse for her continuous use of a private email account was "convenience." Guess what Kushner's is:

Once in the White House, Kushner used his private account for convenience from time to time — especially when he was traveling or using a personal laptop, according to two people familiar with his practice.

As innocuous as the use appears to be -- at least according to obtained documents and unidentified sources' statements -- the point is people in government positions know better than to continue using private email accounts for government business. There's no excuse at this point -- not with more than 25 years of mainstream email use and a half-century of federal public records law.

That officials continue to do this highlights a flaw in public records laws: the fact that they're written by people with the most interest in keeping some communications secret. Private email accounts are used because there's a good likelihood courts won't force every email to be turned over in the event of a records request lawsuit. Even better, since the chance of an actual lawsuit being filed is low enough, many public figures feel these dice are safe to roll.

This isn't solely a Trump Administration problem, but it's definitely a case of double standards. We expect those from our politicians, sadly. But we don't expect them on the level we've seen over the past several months, where political opponents are savaged by administration officials (including the president) for behavior Trump's own team engages in.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 8:33am

    The trolling will be strong in this one. Brace yourselves!

    Ahem. Of course Trump will vociferate against this egregious abuse just like when Clinton did it, right, right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:40am

    But, his emails!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:42am

    Surprises me not...

    ha ha ha ha.....

    Saw it coming and it is still hilarious!

    or...

    should I say... Hillary-ous?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:43am

    But...but... Crooked Hillary!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:48am

    But this is WONDERFUL news...

    ...if you're a US adversary. Why? Because no doubt whatever mail server(s) they're using are likely just as poorly run as those used by Clinton et.al. I wouldn't be surprised if they were hacked and 0wned BEFORE they even had their accounts set up. Why not? It's what I would do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cowardly Lion, 27 Sep 2017 @ 1:01am

      Re: But this is WONDERFUL news...

      Yep. And although it's not stated above, Kushner (like Clinton) has security clearance. And I wouldn't be surprised if Kushner (like Clinton) didn't have Clue No. 1 that eMail is (generally) unsecure. So guess what...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:48am

    I don't even think it counts as a double standard. Yes Trump and his campaign team pushed hard against Clinton for her use of personal e-mail and the end result of that was? Absolutely nothing. You can argue they won the election over that issue but ultimately if there is no consequence for those who've done it in the past then that precedence now is it's okay to use personal e-mail for Government business because the only backlash is public perception.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 10:34am

      Re:

      It was always a double standard.

      Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts including AOL for classified emails. In fact Colin Powell advised Hillary to do so.

      Then there's Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy, tens of millions of White House emails sent through private servers. Millions of them lost. With the same security issues.

      And Jeb!, who as governor used his own server against the rules and as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants.

      And while it's not exactly the same, 2016 candidates Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal each have their own email scandals. Mitt Romney too.

      And of course there's all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests, security be damned.

      That the Trump administration is doing the same should surprise no-one.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 10:38am

        Re: Re:

        I forgot: Mike Pence used an AOL account while Indiana's governor to discuss homeland security matters and security.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 1:33pm

        Re: Re:

        One clear difference is that Ivanka Trump was a volunteer in February. She didn't actually become a federal employee until March 30 of this year. As a volunteer, there is little that can be done about her use of private email, as she wasn't subject to internal policies that only apply to government employees and contract employees. Don't take a paycheck, you're not an employee.

        The volunteer role is why people were so uneasy, she wasn't accountable to a lot of rules and policies, and that's what led to her becoming an actual employee. Until then, if you don't hold employees like Clinton accountable, you sure as hell can't hold a volunteer accountable.

        She can be held accountable for anything as of March 30th.

        Kushner is a different story. He's not and was not a volunteer during those times.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 1:57pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          One clear difference is that Ivanka Trump was a volunteer in February. She didn't actually become a federal employee until March 30 of this year.

          Technically correct, but utter BS. Ivanka's presence in White House meetings and role as advisor to the President was well publicized and documented. March 30th simply made it official.

          Don't take a paycheck, you're not an employee.

          Utterly irrelevant, from a security standpoint.

          Suppose Hillary had played the "I don't use email" card and had an aide use their private email to send the same emails. If that aide were a private non-government employee, would that have made it all peachy-keen?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:28pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It is indeed utterly irrelevant from a security standpoint. And you may consider it BS. But it's not enforceable from a legal standpoint because she wasn't an employee, which was my point.

            Hillary AND her aides were government employees. And Hillary had been one for many years. She had no excuse. This was Ivanka's first pass doing government work, as a volunteer, and they've only identified one email in the article. It's not even worth discussing, unless they determine it continued as a practice for more than a couple of days.

            Hillary was SoS for what, 4 years? And swapped classified info? And still wasn't dealt with? And we're reading about them discovering Ivanka sent one? Utterly stupid comparison.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 27 Sep 2017 @ 6:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              But it's not enforceable from a legal standpoint because she wasn't an employee, which was my point.

              Edward Snowden wasn't a government employee. He worked for NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, which was entrusted with government information. You know, just like Ivanka was a private citizen before March 30, while working in the White House advising the President.

              By your standard, Snowden can't be prosecuted.

              Hillary AND her aides were government employees.

              One more time, what if she used a privately employed aide - much like Ivanka - to send the emails.

              Hillary was SoS for what, 4 years? And swapped classified info? And still wasn't dealt with?

              "Deal with" her, and you have to "deal with" Mike Pence, Bush II, Cheney, Rove, Powell, Rice, Jeb! and all the others in the same way and for the same reasons. And now those in the Trump administration.

              Which is probably a good idea. Or simply investigate why essentially no-one in Washington was willing to use government email servers. But as long as folks like you insist on an investigations focused ONLY on Hillary - and take offense to investigating the rest doing the exact same thing - that won't happen.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2017 @ 12:37pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "You know, just like Ivanka was a private citizen before March 30, while working in the White House advising the President."

                Come on man. Stop being part of the problem. This is an absolute total reach and is playing right into the partisan politics crowd. Snowden signed all sorts of documents saying he wouldn't do what he did, and I'm sure held a security clearance and the like. Ivanka made sure to copy in a government address, and then advised one of the reasons she became a government employee was to preserve records. Even if she's being disingenuous, and you can argue she is if you want, it's apples and oranges. A total reach... Same with the Hillary comparison.

                We can find plenty of reasons not to like the current administration without people taking something simple like this and trying to turn it into something it's not. Your detracting from the real issues with this shit, it's not helping.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Roger Strong (profile), 27 Sep 2017 @ 2:57pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Bull.

                  Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off. That almost certainly gave her access to higher-level secrets than Snowden ever had access to.

                  If Snowden's private employment included government scrutiny - instead of his leak being a civil matter with his employer - then why would it not be the same for Ivanka?

                  If not being *officially* a government employee excuses Ivanka from any security scrutiny, then why wouldn't it for a privately employed Hillary aide?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2017 @ 4:47pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    That almost certainly gave her access to higher-level secrets than Snowden ever had access to.

                    "citations needed"

                    "If Snowden's private employment included government scrutiny - instead of his leak being a civil matter with his employer - then why would it not be the same for Ivanka?"

                    Snowden held a Top Secret Clearance. Did Ivanka hold one at the time? If she did, do you honestly think sending a non-classified email while coping in someone who has a Government account to preserve the email is the same as dumping thousands of classified emails into the public domain? I don't think Snowden is a criminal, I think he will be remembered as a hero, but you can't honestly be comparing the two? Your better than that.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Roger Strong (profile), 27 Sep 2017 @ 5:38pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "citations needed"

                      Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off.

                      This is one case where no further citations are needed.

                      Snowden held a Top Secret Clearance.

                      In his government job. That no doubt helped him get a job at Booz. But now he was no longer at the NSA, no longer a government employee.

                      Sure, it seems self-evident (a concept you have trouble with above) that he should still need a security clearance. But the same equally goes for Ivanka's White House advisor role.

                      Did Ivanka hold one at the time?

                      One more time: Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off. That almost certainly gave her access to higher-level secrets than Snowden ever had access to.

                      You can keep deflecting from that, and I'll keep repeating it.

                      For that matter, you're deflecting just by focusing on Ivanka. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and advisers Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn and Stephen Miller also used email accounts for government-related emails.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2017 @ 5:34am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "That almost certainly gave her access to higher-level secrets than Snowden ever had access to."

                        I think it's possible yes. However it's conjecture and hearsay. You have no proof.

                        "If not being *officially* a government employee excuses Ivanka from any security scrutiny, then why wouldn't it for a privately employed Hillary aide?"

                        Did you even read the sources for the story? She wasn't "excused", she didn't actually have a government email address at the time because she wasn't a government employee. How they hell can anyone pitch such a fit about someone not using government email if she didn't even have one to use? Realizing the partisan shit throw that was inevitably going to happen, she at least copied in her chief of staff so that the email trail was preserved.

                        "However, Ivanka Trump copied her chief of staff, Julie Radford, on the emails. In them, Radford has a White House email account."

                        ""Ivanka Trump was not a federal employee in February. She elected to become a federal employee in March. At the time she did so, she made clear that one of her reasons for doing so was to ensure that she would have access to government-issued communications devices and receive an official email account to protect government records,"

                        If Hillary's aid wasn't a government employee, and as such didn't actually have a government email address, then as long as she's not sending classified info I don't think anyone gives a shit how she sends her email.

                        Hillary was accused/investigated for breaking the law. So is/was Snowden. If the current administration is/was breaking the law, I'm sure the Democrats will ride this like a rented mule until something's done.... but I think this is much about nothing.

                        Directly from the cited sources:
                        “Fewer than 100 emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account. These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal rather than his White House address."

                        Your being childish with your comparisons. I'm just going to leave it at this. reply if you want, but I'm done with this.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 5:36pm

        Re: Re:

        I don't think I understand the "double standard" comment. Each side pointed out the others hypocrisy, and paraded the opposing party's "wrong doers" deeds into the public eye in an attempt to justify their own. The Republicans did it to the Democrats, and the Democrats are now doing the same to the Republicans. Just as you are doing it now. It looks less like a double standard and more like partisan politics as usual. Nothing to see here....

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2017 @ 7:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So long as nothing will happen to anyone, there's no reason to stop doing it. As in if no one is going to be thrown in jail, it's going to continue on both sides.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2017 @ 12:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That's part of my struggle with this. Look; I don't really like Hillary or Trump. I don't think either is fit to be President. I could go on to list a litany of other people on both sides of the isle that i don't like and I don't think are fit. But politics and personal opinion aside; Did any of these people break the law? If they did, then prosecute. I don't care who or which side of the isle, lets give them their day in court. Aside from that, it's all just noise.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Ricky of Kokiri, 28 Sep 2017 @ 2:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          A "double standard" by definition is when anyone holds Group A to one standard of behavior but then holds Group B to another standard of that same behavior. Both sides pointing out hypocrisy and double standards does not suddenly erase the fact of that hypocrisy and double standard, and by making that argument you are, in a way, engaging in the exact same garbage tactics they are.

          Donald Trump, his team, and the Republicans tore Hillary Clinton apart over using private email to conduct government business with a security clearance. Regardless of legality, regardless of consequences (or lack thereof), it is hypocritical for Trump and his team to then engage in that behavior themselves. If it was wrong for her, it is wrong for them.

          It is a double standard for Republicans to condemn Democratic leadership while giving Republican leadership a free pass. For that matter, it's a double standard for the Democrats to condemn Republican leadership while giving Democratic leadership a free pass. So far, however, most of the condemnation I've seen has been on the rhetoric and attacks of the campaign ("lock her up" vs "lock him up") rather than the actual use of email itself.

          By shrugging your shoulders at this, you are conceding defeat to partisan bullshit, and accepting their mediocrity- which I believe is their goal, so success for them! If it was wrong for Clinton and her people, it's wrong for Trump and his people. If it was okay for the former, then it's okay for the latter. I personally don't really care which position you hold- I believe Clinton's server was a deeply problematic molehill that everybody treated like the eruption of Pompeii. What angers me most about this current situation is the strong implication that many of the people in that previous sentence didn't actually care. They made this big show about national security and didn't actually mean a word of it; they fear-mongered people into believing a vote for them was a vote for security, and not a word of it was true. Trump's team is making it appear as if they consider American security to be a tool to win the election, nothing more.

          That should piss everybody off.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 11:09am

      Re:

      "and the end result of that was? Absolutely nothing."

      " they won the election over that issue"

      " ultimately if there is no consequence for those who've done it in the past then that precedence now is it's okay to use personal e-mail for Government business"


      .... until the other party is in (whatever position) - then watch out, because Oh - boy, those emails !!!!!11111111

      hypocrisy knows no bounds and the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem - they will never do that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 5:39pm

        Re: Re:

        Agreed. This whole "the other side did it so it must be ok" mentality is childish. Both sides are guilty. That doesn't mean it's ok for either.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TechDescartes (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:49am

    We Need to Get the Facts Right

    This is sloppy reporting:

    Kushner used the private account through his first nine months in government service, even as the president continued to criticize his opponent in the 2016 presidential election, Democrat Hillary Clinton, for her use of a private email account for government business.

    Actually, Trump criticized Hillary's handling of classified information (Jul. 6, 2016):

    Crooked Hillary Clinton and her team "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." Not fit!

    As I have written before, the issue with Hillary's email server was that it contained classified information on a server in her basement. Even PolitiFact knows that:

    The results of an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state shredded Clinton’s most oft-recited defense — that she never sent or received information marked classified.

    I'm not excusing Kushner any more than Mike Pence from using a personal email account for concealing Indiana's classified recipe for Hoosier pie. But we need to get the facts right.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 10:02am

      Re: We Need to Get the Facts Right

      now now... don't stop a hypocrites roll man, these guys need to be able to hold double standards and to twist things up to meet their political needs.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crade (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 10:05am

      Re: We Need to Get the Facts Right

      I'm sure someone will retroactively declare the recipe classified just like they did last time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 26 Sep 2017 @ 10:55am

      Re: We Need to Get the Facts Right

      You're speaking as if Trump only criticized Clinton's use of private e-mail on one occasion and for one reason. That's simply not the case. He was criticizing her well before Comey's report.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 11:13am

        Re: Re: We Need to Get the Facts Right

        Not understanding nuance and complete tone deafness are mandatory requirements for some

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:50am

    An obvious violation, but to what degree?

    First, this is clearly a FOIA violation. I'm not disputing that. I am however curious whether any of the business improperly conducted via private account covers "national secrets" as was alleged (and ultimately demonstrated) regarding then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The FOIA violation alone is wrong. I'm interested in whether the parties involved here are also risking the same "failure to protect classified information" charges that were considered for Ms. Clinton.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    scotts13 (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:52am

    Knew this was coming

    In fact I was wondering why it was taking so long. I'd be very surprised if you could find a single government official who HASN'T used a private account when he shouldn't have. Usually more convenience than anything else, I'm sure. So, all the time The Great Orange One was pontificating, I was watching the clock.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:53am

    One difference

    One difference is that while Trump officials use private emails (and wrongly I might add) they do not ONLY use private emails (i.e. they have official email addresses, where Hillary did not).

    This means that while both they and Hillary are guilty of FOIA violations. It would be much harder to prove Trump officials were using private emails for CLASSIFIED communications. Hillary, having no email other than her private one, was undoubtedly using it for classified emails. Trump officials are likely using the internal system and email accounts for that.

    Point being, Hillary broke two sets of laws, Trumps people are only breaking one set. Nitpicking I know. But Hillary's failure to setup even the cover of plausibility for handling confidential email correctly, shows how utterly incompetent she was at doing any sort of government job. She was a hack who rode on coattails and favors to every position she occupied where she always did an awful job.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2017 @ 9:56am

      Re: One difference

      > Hillary, having no email other than her private one,

      You are confusing "no email" with "no unclassified email" address. Each level of classification has a different username, they can generally only be accessed from within a SCIF, and some of them can only be accessed with a 2FA token. The vast majority of the time, it is not possible to send classified material off the classified networks. She absolutely had at least one email address for classified information, probably one for Secret and another for Top Secret. They set up a SCIF in her house for this purpose!

      Spillage and leakage occurs pretty regularly, though. People accidentally walk out of the SCIF with a folder they were supposed to put in the safe, or walk in with their cell phone, Kindle, or Furby. These are security violations that should be handled by the lowest-level site security officer and don't often result in firing. Accidental spillage, at worst, results in a written statement that you violated the security policies, and can affect your ability to get a clearance renewed.

      She apparently wasn't listening to the mandatory training about how to handle government information in general (classified, or FOIA-able), and rather than fix the poor IT issues within the State Department, she set up her own shadow IT (and let everyone else deal with the DoS systems as they were). These speak more to me about her performance as a leader and administrator than the spillage.

      The investigation was fully justified, as was the end result of it. An unintentional incident of spillage is generally documented and forgotten (Hey, don't do that again) unless there is a repeated pattern or clear indications of intent to violate the law. All of this is pretty subtle - she was wrong, but not *that* wrong, so everyone sees what they want to see in it. I was angry when she was cleared, but upon further reflection, it makes sense based on what I saw in the SCIFs I worked in.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 9:58am

    All we're really waiting for is someone to show up with a birth certificate showing Donald Trump isn't a natural-born US citizen.

    I'm increasingly interested in what's in Donald's "college records and applications," and "passport applications and records," given how sure he was he'd find something amiss in Obama's.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 10:00am

    You know, I would love something like this to bring down the Trump administration, but I really think people are making this a bigger deal than it is. Current guidelines do not completely restrict the use of private email accounts. People are still going to want to have an account that they can use for private, non-work related conversations. And we know that sometimes those email accounts are going to be used for government business. The key here is making sure that everything is preserved. CC'ing your government account is more than enough to make sure an official record is kept. Did they do this? Well, I guess we'll see.

    And a lot of people are bring up the problem of classified information showing up in these accounts, but just remember that no classified information should ever be shared through email addresses that are accessible through non-secure networks, including whitehouse.gov accounts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 10:08am

    This is just a gigantic distraction

    It is a distraction to keep you from focusing too strongly on Hillary's emails! OMG !!! her emails!

    Given the significance of Hillary's Emails (tm), you should not let your attention be distracted by this present issue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 11:15am

      Re: This is just a gigantic distraction

      Perhaps we are in need of additional congressional hearing on this matter because they obviously have not uncovered anything of substance in their past multitude of hearings spanning the past ummm how many years has it been now?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 10:11am

    This story seems like a reach to me. She used a personal email address before she was actually a federal employee. Even still, she copied in someone who WAS using government email so the email was indeed preserved.

    She stated, in the link you cited, that one of the reasons she became a federal employee (a month later) was so that she would have access to "Government-issued communications". That would indicate to me she didn't actually have access to Government email at the time she wrote the email in question.

    If your sources are good; Then I would conclude she's doing a fairly good job of trying to stick to the spirit of the law. Was that the point of the story?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 10:25am

      Re:

      In furtherance; Wasn't the Cinton issue regarding using private emails to send "classified" info? Reading further, your cited sources acknowledge that the emails sent by Kushner were NOT classified.

      ""Fewer than a hundred emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account," Kushner's lawyer Abbe Lowell said Sunday. "These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal, rather than his White House, address. All non-personal emails were forwarded to his official address and all have been preserved in any event.""

      I'm not understanding how this compares to setting up a private email server and sending emails with classified info on them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 11:25am

        Re: Re:

        It doesn't compare. Tim is a die-hard liberal, and isn't able to be objective about anything to do with Trump.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 1:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It is difficult to be objective at all when the trump bullshit parade is in town. Being liberal or conservative has nothing at all to do with trump being a complete clown and asshole at the same time.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 1:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Really? That's the best you got? Maybe you want to write a second draft of that comment, so it doesn't look like you're drilling for oil with your tongue, up Trumps ass.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 10:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Tim is a die-hard liberal, and isn't able to be objective about anything to do with Trump.

          This should win funniest comment. As someone who's known Tim for a long time now, I don't think anyone could legitimately describe him as "liberal" let-alone a "die-hard liberal." Have you read what he writes or are you just assuming because of this one article he must be a liberal?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 1:08pm

      Re:

      why you calling the Kush a girl???

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JustMe (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 11:03am

    There is speculation

    That he knew this was coming late last week, which is why he started the NFL tirade.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 11:19am

    Unable to fathom the difference between using a private email for some government business, and setting up and using a private server to handle government business? Check.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Coyne Tibbets (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 11:37am

      Re:

      Oh, I see. It's okay to store government secrets on, say, Google's private server, but bad to store them on my personal private server. <eye-roll />

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 5:43pm

        Re: Re:

        Damn.. that wooshing sound was the point of his comment going right over your head lol....

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Coyne Tibbets (profile), 1 Oct 2017 @ 8:17am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You are mistaken; I understood him perfectly. He is trying to make a point that there is a huge difference between private email (perhaps Gmail) and private email on a privately owned server.

          This is the wrong perspective. Let me emphasize the relevant points...

          The major point of contention in the Clinton scandal was that she made top secret communications that were NOT ON A SECURE GOVERNMENT SERVER. But if any top secret communications were made by the Trump team via, say, Gmail, then those were NOT ON A SECURE GOVERNMENT SERVER.

          The other concern for government communications is grouped under the category of "Sunshine provisions"; the public right to review what its government is doing in its name. In the case of Clinton, those communications are out of the public eye because they were NOT ON A GOVERNMENT SERVER. Likewise, the Trump team emails are out of the public eye, because they are NOT ON A GOVERNMENT SERVER.

          So, you see, there are two main public policy reasons why private email should not be used by government officials. From the public policy perspective, whether that is on Clinton's private server--or on Google's/AOL's/Facebook's/etc.--is actually completely irrelevant.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2017 @ 7:48am

        Re: Re:

        I for one would trust Google's Security and expertise in e-mail servers then some home one with security holes everywhere which in fact was hacked.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 27 Sep 2017 @ 8:13am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I trust a private server running a decent OS and email server package - and only one or two administrators - more than one at Google with a large unknown number of people across an unknown number of countries with administrator access.

          The same goes for AOL, the mail server of choice for Mike Pence and Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's secure government communications.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 26 Sep 2017 @ 11:24am

    Lock them up, lock them up, lock them up! :b

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Teamchaos (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 11:59am

    I say raid their houses and confiscate the servers in their bathrooms and shut down those private email servers!!

    Wait, no private servers?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    McGyver (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 12:33pm

    Regardless of how many people have done it before Clinton or after Clinton, Trump made it his rallying call and based his campaign on "Crooked Hillary's" email fiasco.
    This just goes to show what a non issue it was in his mind, and in the minds of everyone in that family.
    It further shows how little integrity or honesty he or his family have, that they would make a major campaign issue out of the Clinton emails and then ignore any concerns of the implications of impropriety their own actions might relay.
    It underlines how much bullshit the Trump campaign was based on and how little respect this unprofessional clown has for the people of this nation.
    So, while this might not be on the same level, nor the first time this has happened... Screw him, throw it back at him, he'd do nothing less himself.
    Crooked Ivanka... Crooked Jared... Crooked Donald!!
    Crooked Ivanka... Crooked Jared... Crooked Donald!!
    Crooked Ivanka... Crooked Jared... Crooked Donald!!
    Lock them up... Lock them up... Lock them up!
    Lock them up... Lock them up... Lock them up!
    Lock them up... Lock them up... Lock them up!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 1:19pm

      Re:

      But but .. it's ok when we do it

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Teamchaos (profile), 26 Sep 2017 @ 1:28pm

      Re:

      You're absolutely right, sending a few emails via a private account is exactly the same thing as sending classified information on a private email server in your bathroom and then deleting 30,000 emails to cover up the evidence. Exactly the same thing. Lock them up!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Baron von Robber, 26 Sep 2017 @ 2:18pm

        Re: Re:

        But their emails!!!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 3:30pm

        Re: Re:

        Sorry I couldn't hear your baseless conjecture over the Trumpian crowd shouting" lock her up." Speaking of baseless conjecture, I wonder if they took any servers with massive amounts of hastily deleted emails when the FBI raided Manaforts house.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 5:49pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          " I wonder if they took any servers with massive amounts of hastily deleted emails when the FBI raided Manaforts house."

          They did, you can find them in the evidence locker right between Monica's dress, and Hillary's server...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 1:52pm

    If you are talking to someone and you mention campaign stuff that can be a violation of using government resources for your campaigning. If you are mentioning home stuff it can be misusing government resources for private gain. It is safer to use non-government emails, because that way you don't violate the rules. The government needs to classify email as a free resource and declare that anything you do on it does not misuse of a government resource. These rules are in place to keep you from taking home paper clips and really do not apply to email.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 2:10pm

    But .. this is different - LOL

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 2:25pm

    Sure. This is different.

    It's different in that these two dipshits should have known better, given all the blathering their orange shit-stain of a father did about emails for 9 months.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 5:46pm

      Re:

      Is it time to blame Obama yet? I don't think we divided the nation quite enough at the last election, lets continue the carnage. Surely we can somehow blame the previous President for this?? /s

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2017 @ 6:23pm

    Of course

    Hillary and Obama set the precedent that running an email server yourself is ok. Liberals totally excused her actions so why wouldn't Republicans follow suit? When you ignore the sins of your party you open things up to everyone. They are playing by your rules now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2017 @ 6:20am

      Re: Of course

      "Hillary and Obama set the precedent that running an email server yourself is ok."

      It was never done before them - yeah right, and I've got this bridge for sale, perhaps you would be interested.


      "Liberals totally excused her actions"

      Excused what, when and how



      " Republicans follow suit"

      Goose / Gander ... blah blah


      Vindictive bullshit seems to fit you well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2017 @ 6:37am

      Re: Of course

      Liberals totally excused her actions so why wouldn't Republicans follow suit?

      Actually, since there's a republican in control of the justice department, the republicans are totally excusing her actions. Why no investigation, indictment, prosecution?

      I thought trump was going to lock her up? What happened to that? Must be coming after Mexico sends over the check for the wall, amirite?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Narcissus (profile), 27 Sep 2017 @ 7:28am

    Hacked?

    Wouldn't it be hilarious if it came out that the leaks from the White House were actually coming from hacked private e-mail accounts used by The Donald & fils to discuss government issues?

    Just thinking about that outcome makes me giggle.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2017 @ 5:14pm

    Re: we don't expect them on the level we've seen

    Absolutely that is what we expect. The more base and rediculous the better. That is how the oligarchy maintains control. It slings stupid everywhere, and if people get wise, it provides a podium to empower people like the kkk and antifa to scare the progressive center back to the corporate left or corporate right.

    The mistake is assuming that there is a legitimate political dialog going on in this country at all. Yes they say different things. That is how the two man con works.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dave Cortright (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:18am

    The NSA collects it all, right?

    The NSA should have access to all of this email. If they cared to go dig it up. Which they probably don't because these are the same guys who can influence their programs and funding. But for the next leaker out there, maybe throw these into the archive as well before you walk out the door...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.