Ivanka breaks federal rules by using a private email account.

Jump to Last Post 1-41 of 41 discussions (217 posts)

60
Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago
CNN just broke the news of the Washington Post report stating Ivanka Trump sent hundreds of emails using her private account in violation of federal rules. What say you HRC haters?
reply report
1. 60
  Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I don't understand why you bring this up. Hillary proved there is no problem with it to democrats. It should be non news to you.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Weren't you one of those who were adamant about HRC's guilt?
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Of course. But, weren't you one of those adamant it was no big deal? Why, now that it is a conservative, is it important?
  
  If she shared classified information over unsecured servers, then we'll have a problem. It is hilarious that would be a problem for those such as you since Hillary doing the same was just peachy in your previous comments.
  reply report
  79
  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  The irony is what's hilarious.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Conservatives always seem to forget about George W. Bush and his missing 22 million e-mails stored at the Republican National Party Headquarters that mysteriously disappeared. Like Hillary was the only culprit that didn't get prosecuted. Their partisan outrage is spectacular.
  reply report
2. 0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  To be fair to Hillary, the House and the FBI should have multiple useless investigations into Ivanka's emails and then let them die, like they did with Hillary.
  
  I suspect most politicians in DC use personal email for at least some business, which is why they probably don't want to carry the investigations too far.
  
  While we're at it, I hope the next Democratic nominee for President doesn't lead his followers into a chant of "Lock her up, lock her up" about Ivanka.
  
  That would be taking the low road. Lord knows we don't want our candidates for President taking the low road.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I was being sarcastic, Pro. No, the left could never stoop to the level of DT's tactics.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I know you were being sarcastic, Randy. I was just trying to take the high road and hoping to get an intelligent reply from Trump supporters.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  HA! I've been trying to do that since he was elected, Scott!
  reply report
3. 85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  It really is astounding that with all of Trump's complaining, Ivanka couldn't remember the rules.
  
  However, it also appears that every other day some government official, past and present, is discovered to have used personal email for official government communications.
  
  So, do we all agree that this is a problem or not a problem? And if it's a problem, then they should all be prosecuted equally. If it's not, then we should all forget about it.
  
  What would appear to be the case is that most politicians break a lot of rules and then try to explain their way out of it.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I think it IS a problem when government officials break the rules. However, I don't think every official who breaks the rules should be subject to multiple congressional and FBI investigations. That is a massive waste of time and resources. There should be some type of mechanism for a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is a basis for a more substantial investigation due to potentially.serious violations.
  
  All that said, if you are a person who thinks Clinton is guilty of a crime, even though she was thoroughly investigated and not charged with a crime, then you should be calling for an investigation of Ivanka. If you thought it was necessary for Hillary to be subject to multiple congressional and FBI investigations to determine what crimes she might have committed, then you should be calling for an investigation of Ivanka. We have no way of knowing what, exactly, Ivanka did with that server until and unless the situation is investigated. Her statement that she didn't know it was against the rules is a lie, as it defies belief that she didn't hear a word about one of her father's central campaign mantras (Lock her up!). Why would she lie unless she has something to hide?
  
  The irony is just too rich. I expect Ed, wilderness, LtL and others to be calling for multiple congressional and FBI investigations to determine the truth. Anything less than that is hilariously hypocritical.
  reply report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I wonder if we can't admit a few things here:
  
  What Hillary Clinton did both having an email server and erasing all those emails was beyond stupid. Clearly, this was done to hide something. There's no other explanation for it. Erasing all those emails was a crime if having to keep the emails is required by law. Now, whether it's worth it to prosecute that crime is another story. At the best, it seems fishy.
  
  Most likely, Clinton using private email as Secretary of State is probably more serious than whatever Ivanka Trump is doing.
  
  Now, that all said, nobody knows what Ivanka Trump is doing or exactly what role she serves or what access she has to sensitive information, so the fact that she has now also violated the same law means somebody needs to ask these questions.
  
  If an investigation into Clinton was required, certainly an investigation into Ivanka Trump is required. This would be consistent, would it not?
  
  Ivanka Trump not following this law after everything her dad has said about the seriousness of using private email is one of two things:
  
  1. The pinnacle of hypocrisy or
  2. Proof that Trump doesn't really care about the email scandal and was just using it as political fodder.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with everything you said here.
  
  Edit: "Most likely, Clinton using private email as Secretary of State is probably more serious than whatever Ivanka Trump is doing."
  
  We can't really know that unless there is an investigation. Remember when Kushner tried to set up a back channel to communicate with the Russians?
  reply report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  It's true, we can't really know. But it's a pretty good assumption. I think it's safe to assume Ivanka isn't doing Secretary of State type stuff.
  reply report
4. 80
  peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Lock her up! Lock her up!
  reply report
5. 79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  All her emails were sent from the Government server. All are archived to be clearly read and investigated if necessary. The key word here is "server' Hillary had a private server... Ivanka followed protocol by using the Government server, as Hillary should have done... She made a mistake. Hillary committed a crime by setting up a private server...
  
  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-29/ … n/10565386
  reply report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  While your assertion may or may not be true, what's up with that link? You had to dig that up from some Australian news site?
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  The interview was conducted by Deborah Roberts for ABC, broadcast on Wednesday. It would seem she would be truthful due to going viral with her explanation. No one on any media networks has disputed her version of facts? It seems Ivanka followed protocol by using the Government server. However, should not have used it for her personal email. This link gives a good description of what transpired.
  
  https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/ … ce-1023312
  reply report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I basically agree that there's no equivalency between the seriousness of the two offenses. Whatever violation was committed by either, Clinton's was more serious.
  
  However, Trump's hypocrisy is off-the-charts.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I think Ivanka should have made it a priority to make sure she knew the proper procedure on how she should be conducting not only private government emails but her own personal emails as well. Especially after all the uproar in regards to Hillary Clinton's email problems. It seems she did not use common sense.
  reply report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Overall I think it's reflective of rich people and politicians believing that the rules don't apply to them.
  reply report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Nice try as usual Sharlee01, but when your grampa daddy spends 2 solid years crying and whining about E*Mails and then you do the very same thing when in our white house it's not called a lack of common sense, it's called retardation on its face and when the investigation commences we the people will discover if air headed little Ivanika broke any laws:
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Once again you show you do little to no research on any given subject. What Ivanka did was in no way compare to Hillary Clinton setting up a private server. It always surprises me that many do not even know what a private server is.
  
  A Private server is a machine or virtual machine that is privately administrated. No one but the owner of the server has access to the server unless it is hacked. Hillary had her server to assure that she would not be caught doing hr dirty deals... You know the 30 thousand emails she deleted to make sure no one would ever read. So sad to see so many are so ill-educated in regards to private servers, and the reason one would want one. What is even more ridiculous half of America defended her "all kind of crazy lawless behavior".
  reply report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  The conclusion that Hillary did "dirty deals" was not proven by the Republicans who investigated her for however long. Also, she did not personally delete the emails. So, when you say things that are purely speculation, it's hard to take you seriously.
  
  Are you saying "where there's smoke, there's fire?" That might be true. Does the same apply to Trump and the 192 charges filed by Robert Mueller in his investigation so far?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Still waiting for some conservative to get angry about the 22 million e-mail GW Bush and his fellow cabinet members deleted from the private server they used and housed at the Republican National Committee Headquarters. Growing a long white beard over that one, in fact.
  reply report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Again, what we should be concerned about as citizens is that people in power seem to believe that rules do no apply to them.
  
  George Bush - Hillary - Trump
  
  Many examples of rules in place and people disregarding them. Is it the case that elected officials go through some kind of rule-breaking training?
  reply report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Sharlee01: I'll reserve judgement until the congressional investigation into air brain Ivanika's E*Mail scandal is concluded but as serious as this appears to be, and as dirt dumb as she appears to be, it's nothing compared to what the Mueller investigation seems to be uncovering:
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is always wise to wait until someone is charged with a crime before bashing their reputation... LOL
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Does that include Hillary Clinton?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Don't recall anyone bashing her...until classified information was found on her private server. And she deleted thousands of emails to prevent finding more. And destroyed her hard drives with a hammer.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That has nothing to do with my response to the previous comment because Clinton was not "charged with a crime".
  
  Another wild diversion, yet again.
  report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  wilderness's last comment is the reason WHY he provides everyone around here with a nice dose of comic relief: lol
  report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
'Peach Ivanka , 'peach Ivanka , 'peach Ivanka ........
Say that three times fast !
Sounds like a Russian steam engine.
reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
But then ...........
Who's listening to CNN ......or Randy ?
reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago
Gee whiz, after all those pro-Trump/anti-Hillary comments--especially during the 2016 election campaign--I thought those same adamant ranters would chime in on Sissy's violation of the rules.....not!!!
reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
So , why don't you tell us what Ivanka's official job government is ?
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Who knows, ED? What I do know is she was informed about the rules and she broke them. Her hubby has access to govt classified info and she has access to some as well. Don't shoot the messenger...
  
  Are you gonna slam her like you did HRC.....or not?
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Well Randy , why don't you begin impeachment proceedings then ?
reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago
Is that a yes or a no, ED?
reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
It's neither Randy .
reply report
1. 70
  Aime Fposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Gotta wait for infowars to tell him how to react.
  reply report
2. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Your usual answer to any question posed to you, ED.
  reply report
79
hard sunposted 5 years ago
I've been tuning in now and then with the popcorn. This is funny and telling how no one here can even offer any excuse for Trump at this point.

Ok, back to my regularly scheduled programming.
reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Aime , I've never listened to info wars . You?
reply report
1. 70
  Aime Fposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Sure have!
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Let's see now ........

Trump Impeachment reason # 663 , Ivanka The E mail machine ?
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Did you bitch about HRC's doing so, ED? Or should I assume you won't answer as usual?
  reply report
67
JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years ago
So where's weirdo hillbilly Trey 'fulla bs' Gowdy now and how many investigations into Ivanka's apparent misuse and perhaps illegal operation of her E*Mail will he demand ??
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Since ED hasn't responded I assume this pore ole dirt farmer has defeated the pro-Trumper's self proclaimed genius in a debate, Jake. Somehow I don't feel too proud.....
  reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago
Dammit man, this probably means we won't hear the chant of "Lock her up" at another Trump rally!
reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Lets see , The former "Secretary of States" Illegal phone habits against the newest presidents daughters phone habits ?

Isn't this is kind of like saying Chelsea Clinton should have Handled Benghazi without getting the entire embassy staff killed ?

Boy.......Liberals sure are smart !
reply report
1. 67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  
  If she does run and if this circus clown manages to evade prison for the next two years, which if we still have laws should be highly unlikely, she'll definitely crush him again like she defeated him by 3 million votes last time only it will be much much worse of a loss for Donald in 2020 given his humiliating loss to the Massive Blue Wave in the midterms the MASS defection of former republicans from the GOP and the rapidly shrinking republican party:
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  According to inside info from the WH staff, "Ivanka is as dumb as a brick." I suppose this means she's a block off the old chip!!
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Randy , take this childishness back on facebook as thats where this thread belongs and you with it , Hillary's emails were a non legal issue for you guys, in spite of her newest subpoena , we'll see how that turns out .
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Personally ED, I don't care about Ivanka's dumb emails and I didn't care about HRC's either. You were childish plenty of times when accusing HRC of using a private server I suppose?
  
  Why don't you take YOUR childish rants to FB as I'm sure you'll find plenty more of your ilk there.
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago
Do you remember this?

"Trump promised he would call for a special prosecutor to investigate her scrubbed private emails."

Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton: You Ought To Be Ashamed Of Yourself, You Should Be in Jail

Of course, that was just another red-meat lie fed to his blood-thirsty base. (Remember, Donald thinks we're dumb, and some of us are.)

The irony is just so....special.
reply report
1. 67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Rapidly Shrinking Blood Thirsty Base:
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yes Jake, the pro-Trumpers are finally getting the message. We'll see less and less of them frequent the forums until finally they'll revert to their Dubya mode meaning they'll claim they never really agreed with DT at all. Watch it happen live....
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Hillary was the head of State Dept be it a poor one , Figure it out Randy as Ivanka is merely a councillor to her Father , I'm not surprised you can't see the importance in the difference though .

Study on in that basic U.S. government book .
reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago
The really stupid thing is Ivanka only had to remember to not discuss govt. business over her private phone, but then, apparently her Dad can't remember this either. After all of the campaign ranting about HRC and WikiLeaks you'd think both of them would've learned something about using a private account......but nooooo!

This shows just how arrogant the first family is and it won't change until they're gone.
reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
But Rannnddy ..........You all said this wasn't even an appropriate or inappropriate E-mail issue with Hillary's snubbing her nose at the entire regulatory federal communications system ?

Hillary didn't do anything wrong ...........remember?

Why's it matter now ?
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Do you understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy," ED?
  
  Who made the big deal about HRC's emails? Did you say anything about them, or not?
  reply report
  0
  Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Oh you like my "hypocrisy " charge now huh ? Copying isn't nice.
  Keep it up Randy I'll have you thinking like a true conservative.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No thanks ED, I'd rather remain intelligent...
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Oh , that's what you call where those rants come from .......
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What rants?
  
  You want to defend your position or simply trade insults? I know the latter is all you have, but you didn't answer my query as to your previous comments about HRC's emails, you simply avoided it as you're prone to do. Just like your hero...
  reply report
  0
  Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Randy , One as you SHOULD know , we're not done with Hillary yet , read the news lately ? Two ,We stick by everything we've ever said about the Clintons, both of them .
  reply report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  And your perverse obsession with President Hillary is just one of innumerable reasons WHY repugnantkins will continue to lose elections in once red districts and WHY the republican base is shrinking faster than 'stubby' Trump can lie through his open trap:
  reply report
  0
  Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  0
  Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Jake , Liberals learn well from Hillary how to gracefully lose an election , Bill Nelson , Stacey Abrams , Andrew Gillam ,.............'spose you want more recounts and are they going to have pathetic meltdowns for two years in denial ?
  Answer Jake .
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You reap what you sow, ED. Does the chant "Lock her up" still appeal to you now Ivanka is in a similar boat? You do realize she's scheduled to appear before the House Intel committee after the first of the year don't you?She will also be queried about her and Jared's finances. That will so much fun for you guys to defend. The hits keep on a-comin'!
  reply report
0
La Veeztaposted 5 years ago
So since Hillary was exonerated from using an unsecured email server a private email server in her home why should whatever Ivanca did be an issue?

“She did not create a private server in her house or office, there was never classified information transmitted, the account was never transferred or housed at Trump Organization, no emails were ever deleted, and the emails have been retained in the official account in conformity with records preservation laws and rules," Mirijanian her lawyer said.

"She did not create a private server in her house or office, there was never classified information transmitted ..." — Ivanka Trump attorney Abbe Lowell, via spokesman.
He added: "When concerns were raised in the press 14 months ago, Ms. Trump reviewed and verified her email use with White House Counsel and explained the issue to congressional leaders." Mirijanian told the Post that Trump had used a personal account prior to being briefed on ethics rules.

FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY USED PERSONAL EMAIL TO CONDUCT FBI BUSINESS, WATCHDOG FINDS

An FBI probe found that, contrary to Clinton's repeated assertions during her run for president, the former secretary of state during the Obama administration had in fact sent classified materials using a private server she established to handle virtually all of her government business. A total of 22 of the emails Clinton held on her private server contained top secret information, and nearly 2,100 contained some form of classified information.

Approximately 31,000 emails were also deleted -- and never recovered -- from Clinton's server following a congressional subpoena. Because Clinton -- and not a third party, like Gmail -- owned, operated, and maintained the server, investigators faced additional challenges in seeking to recover that data.

This is another witch hunt.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  So it's okay for Ivanka then? Lock her up!!
  reply report
  0
  Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "........What , you mean with like , like a cloth or something .........."?
  
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
This entire thread proves that liberals have not one clue about government offices , emails , servers or anything to do with the importance of the head of the State Department compared to merely the president's daughter .
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  It's always great to get the viewpoint of a non-person, ED. It means so much.....
  reply report
  0
  La Veeztaposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Turns out the non-person viewpoint is better than ignoring the facts and making an equivalency between actual law breaking by Hillary who should be locked up and Ivanca who didn’t break any laws. That means so little.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Are you a writer? You do realize this is a forum for writers, or do you, non-person?
  reply report
  0
  La Veeztaposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  It seems your best reply to facts is “you are a non-person” ??? That’s not only lame as can be but someone needs to educate you that facts are non-persons.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Good non-answer, non-person. Love your bio!
  reply report
  0
  La Veeztaposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  “It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”- Thomas Sowell
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  If you tend to believe the quote, why even post as a non-person at all?
  reply report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I think La Veezta might have it backwards, Hillary broke no laws and the investigation proved that but the investigation into dumber than dirt Ivanika's newly discovered E-Mail scandal which should begin in 2019, might reveal some shocking results:
  
  The investigation should be succinct and direct and she should be indicted swiftly if need be because the new blue congress has many additional critically important items to spearhead including legislation to lower health insurance premiums and raising the minimum wage for ALL workers
  reply report
89
Carolyn M Fieldsposted 5 years ago
“To address misinformation being peddled about Ms. Trump's personal email, she did not create a private server in her house or office, there was never classified information transmitted, the account was never transferred or housed at Trump Organization, no emails were ever deleted, and the emails have been retained in the official account in conformity with records preservation laws and rules,"
Source: https://www.complex.com/life/2018/11/iv … t-business
reply report
1. 79
  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  This is from Ivanka Trump’s ethics counsel or a spokesman for Ivanka Trump's lawyer. We only get the truth from people who work for Trump after they're threatened with prison time, and we have proof they're lying. Even if true, it's not denying she broke federal rules with personal emails.
  reply report
2. 0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  So Ivanka claims.
  
  We won't know the truth until there is a thorough investigation by Congress and the FBI.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Better get the IRS and CIA in it too. And maybe the Forest Service and NYPD. Hire the MI5 and the KGB to help. Can never have enough investigations of anyone even remotely connected to Trump!
  
  I thought Hillary pretty well established that using private servers, emails or anything else for government communication up to and including classified information was fine? What are they going to "investigate"? If she uses hair coloring? The color of her lipstick?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Lol, wilderness, you must have forgotten that Hillary is a criminal not fit to be President. Surely, if Ivanka is also such a criminal, you don't want her advising the President.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Anyone that has any connection to Trump, from Ivanka to the drug store cashier that sold him a penny sucker when he was 4 is a criminal. That's obvious, isn't it?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No, it's not. Who said that? I certainly didn't.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Well, that's what I see in these forums. Lots and lots and lots of Trump bashing for reasons that are no more than imaginary events blown into mountain tops.
  
  I told Randy I'm not interested in participating in another Trump bashing - it's gotten old and the bashers never make any sense. Vitriol and hate is all they've got to offer, and I've seen plenty of that already.
  
  "Investigating" Ivanka Trump for less than what Hillary was let off for is stupid; just another political ploy and another way to waste our tax money. They don't want an investigation into Ivanka's email; they want an in depth (years worth) investigation into anything they might find that can be used, with proper spin and exaggeration, to dirty the president. Including that drug store cashier that turned out to have snorted coke 10 years later.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, wilderness, you see what you want to see. Trump deserves most of the criticism he receives in these forums.
  
  But the subject here is Ivanka's violation of government rules, which we all know you find abhorrent based on the many posts you have made here about Clinton's transgressions. I'm not calling for a congressional investigation unless some preliminary evidence surfaces of a potential major violation. I actually thought one investigation of Hillary was justified. Once it was over, though, that should have been the end of it, but no, it became a never ending reason why she wasn't qualified to be President while the lying, bullying pu$$y grabber was.
  
  We're just pleased to see some consistency from the Hillary detractors. Oh, wait, we're not. LOL
  reply report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No need to bash. The questions are pretty simple:
  
  1. Did you support the investigations into Clinton's email/server use?
  2. Do you support an investigation into Ivanka Trump's email use?
  
  The answer has to be yes to both, doesn't it? These are people dealing with sensitive information using systems that are potentially breakable, communicating through channels that can be seen by others, thereby possible exposing classified information.
  
  Also, why is it that so many politicians on both sides seem to think it's okay to break this law?
  
  And finally, all I ever heard from 2008-2016 from conservatives was Obama bashing (literally less than a month into Obama's presidency Bill O'Reilly said he was a failure). How he should be lynched. How his wife was related to a monkey. We're only a couple years into Trump's tenure. Grow a pair.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  1) Yes. It was clearly and obviously against the rules and dangerous to the country as a whole. Let's find out what she did and prosecute if illegal actions occurred.
  
  2) No. It is now well established that it's OK to do those things, up to and including classified information on unsecured hardware. No reason to investigate anyone for doing what is OK to do, then. Should any negative action be taken against Ivanka the 14th amendment clearly comes into play; all that's left is dirty politics and the country has seen enough of that, for God's sake!
  
  Is there another way to look at it? Should 2) by "yes" because it might embarrass Trump? Because it might get a person Trump relies on out of the picture by prosecuting for what we didn't prosecute Clinton for, even after finding out she was guilty? Because Ivanka is Republican and we should always investigate anything Republican? Because we need to spend all those excess fund we have sitting around doing nothing?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Even though I expected this, the little hope I had left leaves me flabbergasted.
  reply report
  87
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Hello PrettyPanther, I hope I don't add to your flabbergastation, but ...
  
  Here is another question. Do you think an investigation is being demanded because a serious crime has been committed, or, because it is a legitimate chance to smack opposing views, (Trumpsters, Trumpeters), with the hypocrisy club?
  
  To answer an anticipated question, I did support the first Hillary investigation - because I don't trust her, but after one, I was done with it.
  
  Does that mean I am a hypocrite if I don't support at least one investigation of Ivanka? Or, even worse... how bad am I if I support the thought that no investigation is needed because a precedent has been set?
  
  psst... I own my anti-Hillary bias, but can I mitigate the damage if I agree that there is bigly political hypocrisy in play?
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I will not argue that there isn't a certain amount of glorious glee in this turn of events, and that influences many people's inclination to call for an investigation. To that, I say, "you reap what you sow." In a better world than this, it wouldn't be That way, but here we are.
  
  As far as a precedent being set, yes, I can agree with that, but until we know exactly what transpired with Ivanka's personal server, we cannot know if it is the same precedent. She might have used it for entirety different nefarious purposes.
  
  So, I do believe an investigation is warranted for two reasons. 1) Jared attempted to create a back channel communication with the Russians, and this administration is known for flaunting normal.conventions in multiple ways. This leads one to question what could be going on with this personal server. We need to find out.
  2) The excuse that she didn't know the rules is an outright lie. Why lie unless you have something to hide?
  
  If there is nothing there, the investigation will be short and all questions about the nature of Ivanka's conduct in this matter will be laid to rest. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
  reply report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I would agree. An investigation is called for, but it should be controlled in its scope. All we need to know is whether or not her communications contained classified information or were done with the intent to conceal information. If not, no harm, no foul.
  report
  87
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Sure it would be a good thing. A quick and short investigation to get the basic facts. Happens all the time in D.C.
  
  As for why she would lie about knowing the rules ... Nope, I ain't opening that door. :-)
  
  GA
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  It happened with Kavanaugh, eh? The short investigation, anyway. Not sure about the attainment of basic facts part.
  report
  87
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, there was that one. ya got me.
  
  GA
  report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Your second point is wrong. We didn't conclude it was okay. We concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Comey insinuated that what was done was wrong, but that a legal case probably wouldn't produce a guilty verdict based on the evidence he had.
  
  Number 2 is, I assume, a "yes" because people should be consistent in their ethical objections to this violation. If you're not, then you're just playing politics and any ethical objections you have to anything aren't based in ethics, but in politics.
  
  You didn't answer my last question though - why are so many officials on both sides breaking this law? Seems everyone uses personal email despite the law.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  And yet the Republican President, Republican Congress and Republican attorney general didn't prosecute her for your version of these horrific crimes.
  
  Maybe, just maybe, what she did is common among all politicians and the radical right is making a big deal out of nothing.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What I said, isn't it? Stripped of the dig and inflammatory language against Republicans, your statement seems to agree with my own: no need for an investigation at all, regardless of the radical left demanding one. Right?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  If the left is so radical for demanding an investigation, but Trump still chants lock her up at his rallies even though there was not enough evidence for a conviction, which side is truly the radical one? The one that wants to investigate or the one that cannot accept the lawful conclusion?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Who claimed there was insufficient evidence for a conviction? Certainly not the FBI - the decision not to prosecute was never explained at all - it just happened (ocincidentally, I'm sure, after Billy's visit).
  
  Bottom line: no one can be convicted of similar crimes after political power halted one prosecution. 14th amendment guarantees equality for all people, even if they don't have Billy on their side.
  report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That's true. Now if you had taken that tact when Hillary had been granted the same lenient outcome that George W. Bush had been given for disappearing 22 million e-mails on a private server at the Republican National Committee headquarters, then you might have some credibility here. But conservatives' hypocrisy for wanting a different outcome based on their partisanship between Bush and Clinton doing the same thing is glaring.
  report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Still nothing to do with the point of the OP. It's about Ivanka Trump. Not Donald Trump.
  reply report
  87
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Hold on promisem, the thread topic may be about Ivanka, but it is still all about Pres. Trump.
  *In my opinion of course. And since it is my opinion, it must be right! ;-)
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Your opinion often has value. But in this case I must disagree with it.
  
  Even the OP title says, "Ivanka breaks federal rules by using a private email account."
  
  Therefore, the thread is about Ivanka Trump.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  LOL We should always take what we see on the internet at face value and as truth, right? No one ever spins anything or lies, do they? No one ever conceals a hidden agenda, no one ever goes around to the back door to get inside.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No, we should actually read Randy's title and post and respond according to the topic.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No, it's about embarrassing Donald Trump.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  It should be embarrassing to his followers, but they are still blinded by his honesty.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Donald Trump is not embarrassed by anything and I doubt he reads this forum. It really is more about our utter disbelief at his behavior and even more disbelief at the tolerance and defense of it by what we used to believe we're reasonable people. Where is their embarassement?
  
  Today, Trump basically let murdering dictators know that as long as they compensated or benefited the U.S. financially that they could murder with impunity.
  
  Are you proud?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Where does the name "Donald Trump" appear in the title or the post?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What does that have to do with Ivanka sending government emails on a private account?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Cranky again?
  
  I didn't know you are buds with Ivanka. You seem to know for a fact she isn't using a private server and isn't sending classified information.
  
  One more time: "We won't know the truth until there is a thorough investigation by Congress and the FBI."
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What have you said about putting words in mouths?
  
  What I SAID was that it doesn't matter: it is apparently all right, and no longer illegal or unethical to air classified information on anything we want.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I'm simply asking you to respond to the topic and not create an obvious diversion.
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago
"Outgoing House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly demanding information on Ivanka Trump’s reported use of personal email."

Gowdy wants information on Ivanka Trump's use of personal email, sets December deadline
reply report
1. 85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Good for him.
  reply report
95
Readmikenowposted 5 years ago
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Where is that librul egghead and his troll-o-meter? ;-)
  reply report
2. 85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You realize the irony of that meme, surely?
  reply report
3. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Wonderfully informative post, Mike! One of your best....
  reply report
4. 85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I like the irony of this one too.
  
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  We seem to get more of these memes in place of rational comments from the Trumpsters these days, Crank. Desperation perhaps?
  reply report
  85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I have to admit, it's kind of fun to make them. Do you really think there are more coming from conservatives? I think it's a way to insult somebody without having to do any work or research or have supporting evidence. I think the one I did above is pretty funny.
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Apparently the liberal dwarfism of diplomatic understanding can't differentiate between the crimes of Hillary Clinton's State Dept. top security failings and essentially that Ivanka Trump didn't make her bed this morning !

And they want to actually debate the issue ?

OMG , what brilliance ,
reply report
1. 85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I differentiated.
  
  However, you can either assume that Ivanka did not transmit classified information through her personal email account (just taking her word for it, I guess, like many liberals took Clinton's word) or you can investigate it.
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Wilderness , Where once the collective left was "Move along nothing to see here , move along , move along "..............Now it's ,

"WHAT IS THIS WITH A TRUMP CELL PHONE "?

Nobody HERE seems to understand the importance and difference of secure State Dept. communications over a what .........a "presidential counselor "?
reply report
1. 85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Since you brought it up, are you at all concerned that Trump uses a cell phone for important calls and that he has been advised not to since the calls can be intercepted?
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
The simple and sad fact about conservatives debating liberals is that usually one meaningless meme beats a whole realm of TDS Trump hate from the left . The left tends to group all political debating to one or two useless points and then the accusations... "racism , misogynist, bigotry, nationalism .... " charges traditionally arise from them .It's a matter of saving a whole lot of wasted time debating those who don't know anything.

Oh I forgot" Russian Bot" !
reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago
Answering questions about DT's actions and statements is getting increasing more difficult for his devoted followers. It can only get worse for them....
reply report
1. 0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I honestly don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to stay focused on the subject of your original post.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  They don't want to, Scott. They just come here to tell me I'm ranting and Trump-bashing while offering no real substance to the conversation. I don't see how they have the nerve to comment at all the ways are going now with all of DT's troubles. Blind to the end I suppose...
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
One more obstruction , impeachment NON issue .
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Gee ED, wanta bet on it?
  reply report
  0
  Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What happened to all your other impeachments there Randy ? How are they doing ..........
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What impeachments, ED? Do you think the Mueller probe is over? Where do you get you inside info from......Fox News?
  reply report
  0
  Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Like All of your impeachment reasons to date , 564 0f them , from orange hair to the "porn star chronicles" .
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Show me where I called for Donnie's impeachment for those reasons, ED. Oh. you're just trumping it again, right?
  reply report
67
JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years ago
I had always surmised like so many other humans that the Trumps were in many ways mentally retarded, but after all Donald's blubbering for 2 solid years about flimsy claims pertaining to Hilary's E*Mails and then, his offspring does the EXACT same thing in our white house ????? I think any court of law would accept that as pretty strong evidence of 'retardation':

Geez, and I always thought 'Ivanta be a dictators daughter' would be going away to sing sing for Azerbaijan:
reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Randy , Jake , I truly wonder what you two will ever do if there's a real reason to impeach the entire Trump family from the white house? This whole "The Sky Is Falling " mentality .......... is sure going to cost you two all your forum capital when it happens .

Who's gonna listen ?

Happy Turkey Day Boys and Girls !!!!!!
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  And if the entire family gets indicted you won't lose a bit of credibility, ED. You lost that on election day in 2016.
  
  HTG to you too!
  reply report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think you're too far off Randy considering just the mountain of PUBLIC evidence we know of excluding what has been uncovered in secret by the ongoing investigations:
  
  I heard 'batty' Rudy Giuliani leaked one of the questions that Mueller's criminal team asked of 'stubby' Trump and it apparently pertains to the infamous 'Trump Tower Meeting' with Russians and prosecutors want to know if Donald had prior knowledge of it: That tells me Donny Junior must already be up to his eyeballs as he should be with some derivative of 'conspiracy' and Donny Senior might be as well to go along with slam dunk 'obstruction' and so many other charges:
  
  I heard it in passing on a news channel and I'm searching for verification: Just the fact that prosecutors are asking Mr. Trump questions even in written form is a very bad sign for him and his entire family:
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Let's get back to a REAL question and point ; Anybody here understand the difference between the required need of secure communication between the Head of the State Dept. and that of a president's daughter ?

No ? Let's ignore reality !

Never Trumpet's are good at this.

This whole issue would have an equivalence , Malia Obama leaving her seventh grade math note book out in the open.
reply report
1. 79
  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  She was an official employee of the White House, this may be classified info and was about government business. This is unlike a seventh grader's homework. Geesh-- Of course, you don't care cause she's the beloved's daughter. Take Trump's picture off the mantle for at least a few days.
  reply report
2. 85
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry Ed, but even I don't believe that you're this dumb. Ivanka's error is equivalent to Malia leaving a 7th grade math notebook in the open?
  
  You actually wrote that.
  
  Do you seriously believe that Malia had a security clearance equal to that of Ivanka given that Ivanka is a presidential advisor and Malia was not?
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Not the same Hard sun , I realize why you can't see it though , no wonder we can't see why liberals suffer selective outrage .
It's not a real thing.

Why are these both apples ?
reply report
1. 79
  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  One answer..because Trump told you they are not.
  reply report
2. 85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Selective outrage is when conservatives find criminality in Hillary deleting 33,000 e-mails from a private server while barely batting an eyelash at George W. Bush scrubbing 22 million from a private server at the Republican National Committee Headquarters while president. Now that IS selective.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  As I recall from the time period and furor, when GW was president there was no rule about keeping official emails on govt. servers. Not that that has anything to do with scrubbing non-official emails, such as those from a private organization.
  
  And of course, no one is particularly upset about Hillary scrubbing her emails, except that they had been subpoenaed already; the upset was at putting classified information on unprotected servers. A far different thing, yes?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  So the Presidential Records Act passed in 1978 was before GW's time? How odd. Or that during Bill Clinton's time, the government created an archive system that gave you a prompt that said a deletion of an e-mail was a violation of that law. A system that was shut down during the Bush years in clear violation of the law.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I did not realize Clinton was in violation of rules for Presidents when SecofState. My error.
  
  Still not getting the connection between Clinton putting classified material on private servers and GW wiping a private database, though. Unless you can prove that GW's emails, as president, were on that wiped drive?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Private database? It was a private server same as Clinton, but housed at the RNC, and used by many of Bush's cabinet members. Likely as secure as Clinton's was.
  
  Do some research before making a statement like 'unless you can prove GW's emails, as president, were on that wiped drive.' It's been established they were.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That's what I said. It was private.
  
  But I notice that the records act requires "that records demonstrating the “activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the Performance of the President’s constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties…are preserved and maintained.” Was there any such that was destroyed? Or just emails about election possibilities?
  
  That "Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records." Were all records destroyed personal in nature?
  
  That "Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value" Were destroyed records of this nature?
  
  I don't know that you have answered any of these possibilities, let alone all of them. That was the point - was it legal to destroy them, as Clinton did with records already subpoenaed?
  
  And it still has zero to do with Clinton putting classified information on her private server - that was and is the primary concern, not that she destroyed records, even though there were already asked for.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it was private, and being used to conduct official government business, just as Clinton's was. Not only by Bush, but by senior staff. You know, like the VP and others with as high of a clearance as say, a Secretary of State.
  
  22 million e-mails, many during the time the US was heading into the Iraq war based on fabricated intelligence from the Bush administration. If that doesn't answer the administrative, historical, and evidentiary value component, then you're just burying your head in the sand like you always do when a conclusion doesn't fit your partisanship.
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

Here you go Trump Resisters wringing hands over prayer beads for every excuse for dreams of impeachment , Putin love , emails , collusion , golf club wars , business profiting , Syria , caravans , cronyism, orange hair , being old and white , the Wall , tariff wars , trade wars , military expenditures , banning Jim Acosta , "fake news " , GM demise ,Melania's citizenship , Wiki-leaks , Putin , Ivanka phione , tax cheating , racist remarks , hate remarks , "snowflake ", multiple cell phones, more putin love , travel costs , did I mention Putin , more collusion , more emails , fake news again , hotel profiting , Christmas decoration hate,Pelosi hate , Boxer hate , Trump U , Coke drinker 13 a day , ...................
reply report
67
JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years ago
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I'm getting weary of Huckabee's simpering attitude during the daily--only in name--WH briefings. Her daily lies and avoidance of answering questions rings true to form like her cretin boss. Thought she was leaving soon?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I like that people are reporting that CNN put a split screen up when she spoke, with one half a fact check side with the true information available.
  reply report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Randy, Valeant: The major legitimate news networks no longer carry Bozo's hate gatherings live for what we can assume are many reasons including the very real possibility that the USA has become tired, bored and of course appalled by his bizarre, racist angry rants and tizzy fits and yes, a split screen when Sarah Huckleberry speaks from many sides of her mouth is an absolute necessity to sift out any grains of truth from vast amounts of fiction:
  
  Lastest Gallup Poll has Mr. Trump at a Record LOW Approval Rating of 38% and a Record HIGH Disapproval Rating of 60%: I guess the treasure trove of incriminating evidence surfacing from the investigations combined with his constant sabotaging of our healthcare system and public cowering to Vladimir Putin are beginning to finally WAKE Up some of his cult members out in the sticks:
  reply report
  79
  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I sincerely hope that these latest developments will wake up at least some of his cult members. His poll numbers have dropped under 40 before though. The good news is it's not going to take too much more of a drop for Trump to lose influence with many Republicans. Then we have the issue that Trump's biographer states many Republicans are compromised by the Russians.
  It may sound Mcarthyesque, but the surreal developments and defense of Trump by people like McConnell points in that direction. There's much more evidence for this than any of the InfoWars type conspiracy theories.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry to say that I think you are too optimistic. His followers will never admit they are wrong in supporting him, no matter how badly he acts.
  reply report
  79
  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I really don't have much optimism as compared to hope. I'm really just saying that his support is already low enough that he cannot afford to lose even a very small percentage of his supporters. I do think there a few supporters who aren't die-hards that can see when his policies just aren't working.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  When the economy declines, which more and more experts are saying is starting to happen because of his tariffs and tax cuts, his support will erode more.
  
  If it drops below 30%, it shouldn't surprise anyone if Republicans in Congress finally grow a pair and start to suport impeachment.
  
  Then again, they have become such immoral cowards since Reagan and HW Bush that I kind of doubt it.
  reply report
  79
  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly. I almost typed the exact same in reference to the economy. I know many Trump supporters who are the "voted for a business man to shake things up" kind of voters. These people are starting to grumble.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Do you really see a possibility of 2/3rds of the Senate voting for impeachment? On what grounds?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  When it's proven he laundered money for the Russian oligarchs, would you want someone with those kinds of ties running the country?
  
  When it's proven he conspired with a hostile foreign government to use stolen e-mails to win the presidency, will you still be able to trust him to be impartial when it comes to that country?
  
  When it's proven he violated campaign finance laws to win the presidency, will you look the other way and set a precedent that that kind of behavior is acceptable as long as you win?
  reply report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Valeant, it looks like 2 of the 3 you've mentioned have already been proven just from the evidence which has been made public and GOD only knows what the Mueller prosecutors have uncovered in covert operations: Money Laundering should be a no brainer to prove once the investigations turn in that direction:
  
  "German police raid Deutsche Bank offices on money laundering allegations; shares fall 3.4%"
  
  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/29/deutsch … tions.html
  
  When all is said and done, it looks like the potential crimes sweet little Ivanika may have committed with her white house E*Mail scandal might turn out to be the very least of her legal worries but who knows, let's see what turns up from the congressional investigation into her dumber than dirt fiasco:
  
  "Here's what Ivanka Trump still doesn't get about her email problems"
  
  https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics … index.html
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "When it" ... The path you are on is strewn with what ifs and when its. Do you ever just consider facts? It odd that you believe that president Trump has broken the law throughout his life, and just never been charged? I guess I could ask. What if there is no there-there?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  The path I'm on has been proven already. The campaign finance law violation has been established by audio tape of Trump setting up the illegal payments with Cohen.
  
  The money laundering has been established when the Trump Taj Mahal Casino violated anti-money laundering laws 106 times in its first two years in existence. This from the 1998 settlement.
  
  The collusion is already established when his senior campaign staff met with the Russians in Trump Tower to get the illegal e-mails. When Stone and Corsi reached out to Assange.
  
  Pull your head out of the sand please.
  
  And I haven't even gone into the Obstruction of Justice charge. You know, the one he admitted on national television to Lester Holt.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You need to pul your head out of the sand, and o proper research. Your comment has been arrived at by nothing but media reports, if comes on possible crimes. Trumps buisness history in regards to Taj Mahal lead to a settlement which by law was acceptable.. It is also not illegal to meet with a Russian last I heard... Plus could they not have planned the meeting at a more camera secured space than Trump tower... LOL It was apparently not meant in any respect to be hidden.
  report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Didn't answer the question, though - do you see this Senate ever providing a 2/3rds majority to impeach?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Trump hijacked the Republican party. With this many crimes and ties to Russia, this will be the opportunity for senators to grab it back.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  They have had the "opportunity" for over 2 years now.
  
  Do you really see this Senate ever providing a 2/3rds majority to impeach Trump? Forget the faux "crimes" from decades ago, and the fake "meetings" with Russians with no known agenda; If they find that Trump had secret meetings with Putin, leaving videos of Trump on his knees begging for Russia to put up fake FB posts, do you really think the Senate would vote, with a 2/3rds majority, to impeach?
  
  Because I don't. Given that nearly half the Senate is Democrat, and would instantly vote for impeachment with no grounds whatsoever, the rest of that 2/3rds will never do it regardless of proven provocation.
  report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You seem to have a lot of information about the Trump investigation that isn't available to the general public.
  report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I vehemently disagree with your description of his crimes, both past and present. But I can agree that an impeachment may be difficult to get without damning evidence. I just believe that evidence exists and when his crimes during the election are illuminated by Mueller, it will be too devastating to dismiss like you just tried to.
  report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What makes you believe that the evidence exists? Because you want it to? Because Mueller is returning several unrelated, irrelevant indictments? Because you hate Trump and want to hurt him?
  
  What makes you believe evidence of crimes by Trump exists with, to date, zero evidence of any?
  report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe because Mueller already has 31 indictments plus multiple guilty pleas from close Trump associates.
  
  Maybe also because many former prosecutors who have made public comments have all said the same thing: that Mueller is using lower-level indictments as leverage for bigger fish.
  
  What makes you believe the evidence doesn't exist? Because you want it to?
  report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  For one, Trump admitted to the obstruction of justice on live television to Lester Holt. Second, when his senior campaign staff took the meeting in Trump Tower, that was illegal. Third, the timeline of his campaign speeches a few days prior to the release of e-mails by wikileaks makes it clear they were coordinated. Fourth, I've heard the audio of Trump discussing the illegal payments to Daniels and McDougal. He would have been indicted for that already if he wasn't elected. It's an easy search if you actually want the truth of that crime. Five, who hires this many compromised staff - Flynn and Manafort who were actually agents of foreign governments - without a complete disregard for the law.
  report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Five, who hires this many compromised staff - Flynn and Manafort who were actually agents of foreign governments - without a complete disregard for the law."
  
  Anyone who has had their entire staff investigated with all the resources of the FBI, for nearly two years. Ever think of what other politicians staff would look like under that circumstance?
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Are not most arrested if they commit a crime? Has the president been charged with a crime?
  report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You do understand that, by precedent, you need to impeach before you can indict, correct? I mean, you do understand the way the law works before posting, right?
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Ys I understand it takes 2/3 of the Senate to impeach the president... Not sure what you are talking about? I did not bring up indicting the president or anyone else.
  "Second, when his senior campaign staff took the meeting in Trump Tower, that was illegal. " No this is not against the law...
  
  " For one, Trump admitted to the obstruction of justice on live television to Lester Holt." He admitted he wanted to fire Comey... Not against the law. Just not. Not sure where you got the idea it would be?
  
  " Third, the timeline of his campaign speeches a few days prior to the release of e-mails by wikileaks makes it clear they were coordinated."
  This sounds really crazy... Can't even comment
  
  " Fourth, I've heard the audio of Trump discussing the illegal payments to Daniels and McDougal. Once again not illegal. It could be if campaign funds where used. No proof of that.
  
  " Five, who hires this many compromised staff - Flynn and Manafort who were actually agents of foreign governments - without a complete disregard for the law"
  Neither is an agent of a foreign government. Plase give a reliable resource for this kind of alligation.
  report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You asked why he hasn't been charged. He cannot be charged as the sitting president, he must be impeached first. Hence why I ask if you know the law regarding why he hasn't been charged with his crimes yet. There has to be enough evidence that the Senate will have no choice but to see his guilt to impeach him, then he can be indicted.
  
  Going to the Trump Tower meeting with the intent of getting something of value from a foreign nation is a violation of campaign finance law. When Don Jr. said he loved the idea of getting the hacked e-mails, then taking the meeting, he broke the law.
  
  Trump admitted he was thinking of the Russia thing when he fired Comey.
  Pretty much a direct quote. Comey was running the Russia thing. Hence, that's about as clear a case of obstruction as you can find.
  
  If the payments weren't illegal, why was Cohen found guilty of two counts of violating campaign finance law and then admitted Trump directed him to make the payments, as the audio tape supports? Trump is a co-conspirator, but not indictable until he is impeached.
  
  Flynn was working on behalf of Turkey, public knowledge. Manafort was working on behalf of Ukraine, again easily searchable for anyone with the internet.
  report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  The topic is the guy under investigation who has openly committed these crimes. Try again to come up with a viable excuse, because that one that there are other criminals in Washington so Trump should not be prosecuted was pretty lame.
  report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Sharlee01: When prosecutors investigate a 'Pyramid" style case which appears to be exactly what the Mueller Criminal Investigation is all about excluding the lower NY case(s), it takes time to work your way up to the top and considering the volatile and unhinged nature of the person at the top who seems to be capable of just about anything irrational like instigating nuclear war with N Korea or publicly betraying the USA by siding with Russia on global television in Helsinki or any number of other INSANE public acts this orange elderly guy has already committed, you must collect ALL evidence first and then indict ALL at the top at once to mitigate the unholy mega-mess the white house seems to be headed for:
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I see... If Mueller has found the president has broken the law, he will sit on it and let him continue to run our country. Good to know... OMG
  report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Well, it seems obvious the three areas of investigation are collusion, money laundering and obstruction of justice.
  
  If any of them pan out, then of course he should be impeached. If they don't pan out, he shouldn't be impeached.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Well said.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, Sharlee. I'm glad we agree the law of the land is more important than any political party or politician on either side.
  reply report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  As I stated before promisem, just the public evidence alone would convict Bozo Trump or anyone else of many obvious crimes in any federal courtroom and I think he realizes it and that's probably one reason for his enraged out of control twitter rants which he publishes on OUR TIME and his disgraceful public behavior: Can you imagine the mountain of evidence prosecutors have unearthed covertly that we don't know about yet ??
  
  When prosecutors are asking him if he was aware of the infamous and what nazi Steve Bannon called treasonous Trump Tower Meeting, you know everyone is going down and down hard: If Mueller thought the Trump Tower Meeting which included at least one Russian spy was not a crime, why is he reportedly asking Donny Senior about it ?? Donny Jr, Jared and the rest seem to be in deep deep......
  
  If we still have laws in this country, and I personally hope we do for the sake of this rapidly deteriorating nation which was unwillingly dragged into this perpetual, unsustainable unprecedented white house crisis of dark hell, Donald will presumably face the Russian Music very very soon and thank GOD for that:
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Didn't answer the question. Do you see this Senate ever providing a 2/3rds majority to impeach?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I did give an answer. You asked "on what grounds". I provided them as the reason why the Senate would vote to impeach.
  
  You also said "of the Senate", and now you are saying "of this Senate".
  
  It will take about 17 Republicans to join 49 or so Democrats in the current Senate. Getting 17 votes is not farfetched in states that are not strongly Republican if Trump is found to have committed any crimes.
  
  There will be serious consequences for any Republican who protects a President guilty of federal crimes. It's a moral justification for civil war.
  
  If Dems get more seats in two years and the vote takes place then, the odds go up even more.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Then your answer is "Yes, you expect the Senate to verify an impeachment."
  
  (But are you assuming that all 49 Democrats will vote for impeachment, purely on a partisan basis, without any need for actual cause? You might be right, but I would hope not.)
  report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No, that's not my answer. My answer is what I said, not what you said.
  
  Regarding the imaginary lack of cause, I will repeat what I previously said, which follows the law and which seems to be forgotten in this exchange:
  
  "If (collusion, money laundering or obstruction of justice) pan out, then of course he should be impeached. If they don't pan out, he shouldn't be impeached."
  report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "If (collusion, money laundering or obstruction of justice) pan out, then of course he should be impeached. If they don't pan out, he shouldn't be impeached."
  
  Once more, "should be impeached" has nothing to do with whether the Senate will do so or not. That was the question.
  report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Once more, 'Then your answer is "Yes, you expect the Senate to verify an impeachment."' is not my answer.
  
  "Should" is a relevant word. Asking me to predict exactly how many Senators will vote is absurd.
  report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  promisem: The BLUE Democratic Wave of Righteousness Materialized for several reasons, one being the many former Bozo Trump fans who have abandoned the republican party and actually decided to vote in their best interests which was for the democratic party and that's just a fact so yes, Bozo Trump is indeed losing even some of his most rabid cultees and that can't possibly be a surprise to anybody:
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Sarah Huckabee- Sanders is one of the most prolific press room people ever , I love how she stomps on the overgrown egos of the phony outraged media and especially putting Acosta in his place .

Go Sarah !
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Sure you like her as she lies like her boss. You seem to admire liars, ED. I've never seen her stomp on any of the media as she's usually trying to avoid answering their questions. Perhaps you could give me an example?
  reply report
  0
  Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I guess you dont watch her do that daily ?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  She doesn't do it daily as the WH rarely has the briefings anymore. Where do you see this happen daily, or are you trumping it as usual? Sure you are..
  
  The example?
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Randy ,I just heard Sarah plays golf too ...............
Impeach her NOW darnit !
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  The example? Or just admit you trumped it...
  reply report
67
JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years ago

Whoever created this seems to have selected the CORRECT 4 family members: I think Eric is the ODD man out unless of course investigators have something on him behind the scenes which is not out of the question given the scope and intensity of the probe:
reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
'Peach 'Vanka ,' peach 'Vanka , 'peach 'Vanka............'peach her !
reply report
67
JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years ago
reply report
1. 79
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  One difference--- Ivanka's emails were all documented on the Goverment server. Oh, and none were deleted. I know this is one fact CNN did not report, but Fox did... Let's see - Government server, personal server. Archived emails, deleted email. Yeah, no hard to see who broke the law knowingly.
  reply report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Sharlee01: At this point, I don't think anybody really knows if all of little Ivanika's special little elitist E*Mails were documented nor do we definitively know if any were deleted nor does it matter, but both questions should be answered by the investigation into her remarkably dopey actions but given the apparent MOUNTAIN of evidence being unearthed and developed by the Mueller prosecutors and NY, and given the shear volume of nasty, angry blabbering tweets her grampy daddy is shoveling out to the public lately, I'd say who knows, as serious as this seems to be, it might turn out to be the least of her legal troubles according to reports:
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Thought this would make Jake smile...
  
  reply report
  67
  JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Ahhh yes Valeant, it makes the WORLD smile and the joyous global celebration is just over the horizon:
  
  lol: What would Bozo's slogan have been in 2020 anyway? "Please VOTE for me or I'll be thrown in prison" ?? And the sad part is that some of his last remaining followers would have actually VOTED for him based on that plea !!!!
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Ivanka breaks federal rules by using a private email account.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Ivanka breaks federal rules by using a private email account.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies