Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send mails about government business

[carpedm9587]

Even the WaPo article calls them the "liberal watchdog group".

It is no surprise to me that each side has their "watchdog" group, and then there are more neutral/independent watchdog groups. I do not dismiss the findings of this or that watchdog group on the basis of their leanings (i.e., the genetic fallacy). I simply work harder to verify claims if the group has a known leaning. If the group leans too far right or left, I may not wish to spend the time and energy to parse out the facts from the spin.

I've seen innuendoes that the "government business" was included in that time frame, which includes the transition phase of her father assuming the Presidency. I've seen no actual evidence that there were any from after her training. And I've seen no evidence that any of it was raised to the level of classified.

I do not recall seeing any claims that the contents were classified. I'm not sure what you are looking for in terms of "evidence." I do not expect media outlets to reveal their sources at every turn - that's not how it works.

Frankly, I don't think Ivanka did anything illegal. I think she was merely stupid/naive to do ANYTHING government-related with a private email server, after the pounding her father and his acolytes gave Clinton for her use of private email - with or without training. "Private email" and "government" SHOULD have been a big red flag from the moment her father was elected and especially the moment she had a government hosted email address.

[rogue06]

It is no surprise to me that each side has their "watchdog" group, and then there are more neutral/independent watchdog groups. I do not dismiss the findings of this or that watchdog group on the basis of their leanings (i.e., the genetic fallacy).

El toro poopoo.

[Mountain Man]

I do not dismiss the findings of this or that watchdog group on the basis of their leanings (i.e., the genetic fallacy).

Given the number of times you've attempted to validate or undermine a source by linking to "Biased Media Fact Check", I find your assertion very hard to believe.

Frankly, I don't think Ivanka did anything illegal.

And what about Hillary? Are you in general agreement that this attempt to exonerate Hillary with "whataboutism" has effectively failed?

[Bill the Cat]

It is no surprise to me that each side has their "watchdog" group, and then there are more neutral/independent watchdog groups. I do not dismiss the findings of this or that watchdog group on the basis of their leanings (i.e., the genetic fallacy). I simply work harder to verify claims if the group has a known leaning. If the group leans too far right or left, I may not wish to spend the time and energy to parse out the facts from the spin.

To date, they are the only ones who have actually made a claim of her doing "official government business" via her personal email address.

I do not recall seeing any claims that the contents were classified. I'm not sure what you are looking for in terms of "evidence." I do not expect media outlets to reveal their sources at every turn - that's not how it works.

Just some credible agency stating what the nature of these supposed communications were and when they occurred, and if they were copied to the official address as well. So far, I've seen nothing she has done is against policy except for sending her schedule, which also implies secret service agent movement. That, I would say needs to get her reprimanded if it was after her training.

Frankly, I don't think Ivanka did anything illegal. I think she was merely stupid/naive to do ANYTHING government-related with a private email server, after the pounding her father and his acolytes gave Clinton for her use of private email - with or without training. "Private email" and "government" SHOULD have been a big red flag from the moment her father was elected and especially the moment she had a government hosted email address.

I forward myself work to my personal address all the time. It's always routine publicly available work. I had to register for my travel itinerary in March using my personal email address because travel companies like Expedia and Kayak are blocked by our email content filter as spam. It's allowed under some circumstances.

[carpedm9587]

To date, they are the only ones who have actually made a claim of her doing "official government business" via her personal email address.

Most of the articles I have read source back to this WP article that references a White House survey of email use. There is no reference to the agency you cite.

Just some credible agency stating what the nature of these supposed communications were and when they occurred, and if they were copied to the official address as well. So far, I've seen nothing she has done is against policy except for sending her schedule, which also implies secret service agent movement. That, I would say needs to get her reprimanded if it was after her training.

Apparently, the issue was serious enough to get the WH concerned about it.

I forward myself work to my personal address all the time. It's always routine publicly available work. I had to register for my travel itinerary in March using my personal email address because travel companies like Expedia and Kayak are blocked by our email content filter as spam. It's allowed under some circumstances.

You are not the daughter of a president who made villifying his opposition's use of email a cornerstone of his campaign. So - I repeat - I doubt she acted illegally - but I think she acted stupidly/naively.

[carpedm9587]

El toro poopoo.

[carpedm9587]

Given the number of times you've attempted to validate or undermine a source by linking to "Biased Media Fact Check", I find your assertion very hard to believe.

Please point to ANY post I have made in which I have asserted that a claim is false because of the ranking provided by https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/. If you find one - I''ll concede your objection. If you don't...I wonder if you will withdraw your observation?

And what about Hillary?

As for Hillary, I likewise do not believe she acted illegally. I DO believe she acted stupidly and did not engage people with the right expertise to properly advise her (a failing I have long thought is one of her more severe shortcomings and made her a less than ideal candidate/leader).

Are you in general agreement that this attempt to exonerate Hillary with "whataboutism" has effectively failed?

You apparently do not understand the concept of "whataboutism."

[Bill the Cat]

Most of the articles I have read source back to this WP article that references a White House survey of email use. There is no reference to the agency you cite.

From the very article you linked...

Source: WaPo article

Austin Evers, executive director of the liberal watchdog group American Oversight, whose record requests sparked the White House discovery,

© Copyright Original Source

There is no hint at any content other than her schedule in the article.

Apparently, the issue was serious enough to get the WH concerned about it.

Optics. That's all.

You are not the daughter of a president who made villifying his opposition's use of email a cornerstone of his campaign.

Nor is she. She is the daughter of a president who made a point of stressing his opposition's mishandling of classified information and destroying evidence a cornerstone of his campaign. Her use of email is way too broad of a statement.

So - I repeat - I doubt she acted illegally - but I think she acted stupidly/naively.

I'd give you naively. As I stated originally, she wasn't trained at the time on what constituted a federal record and what constituted official business.

[carpedm9587]

From the very article you linked...

Source: WaPo article

Austin Evers, executive director of the liberal watchdog group American Oversight, whose record requests sparked the White House discovery,

© Copyright Original Source

Bill, the group made a FOIA request. The WH, upon attempting to meet the request, was the agency that discovered the email situation. The Washington Post article was based on the WH discovery and was sourced to people in the WH familiar with the issue, not the American Oversight Group.

There is no hint at any content other than her schedule in the article.

Agreed

Optics. That's all.

That's essentially my point

Nor is she. She is the daughter of a president who made a point of stressing his opposition's mishandling of classified information and destroying evidence a cornerstone of his campaign. Her use of email is way too broad of a statement.

Tomayto - Tomahto. Apparently the White House was concerned about the optics of this discovery. Frankly, her choice was pretty stupid or pretty naive, IMO.

I'd give you naively. As I stated originally, she wasn't trained at the time on what constituted a federal record and what constituted official business.

Bill, we're talking about a woman who ran her own business. She's not an infant. She's a supposedly intelligent human being. You're going to tell me she needed "training" to grasp that use of a private email system for ANY government-related business was going to someday snap back on her when/if it was discovered? She made a very stupid mistake.

And we've gone around on this more than enough. I've been (justly) accused of digging in on a topic, so time to let this one go. Last word to you.

[Cerebrum123]

Basically he's calling that out as BS.

[Bill the Cat]

Bill, the group made a FOIA request. The WH, upon attempting to meet the request, was the agency that discovered the email situation. The Washington Post article was based on the WH discovery and was sourced to people in the WH familiar with the issue, not the American Oversight Group.

Even so, the AOG has more than one quote in the article, so they are being held up by the writer of the article as being just as informed.

Agreed



That's essentially my point

And has been mine since the beginning. It's much ado about nothing, and the AOG acting like this is in any way similar to what Hillary did just strains all credulity.

Tomayto - Tomahto. Apparently the White House was concerned about the optics of this discovery. Frankly, her choice was pretty stupid or pretty naive, IMO.

If you are studying for the CISSP, then you should know this isn't just a tomayto -tomahto thing. The difference between ignorantly sharing a schedule and blatantly mishandling classified information is night and day.

Bill, we're talking about a woman who ran her own business.

Executives are the sloppiest of the sloppy when it comes to knowing about actual on the ground regulations. Private sector executive management is in no way like public service management.

She's not an infant. She's a supposedly intelligent human being. You're going to tell me she needed "training" to grasp that use of a private email system for ANY government-related business was going to someday snap back on her when/if it was discovered?

Yes. She had no idea that something as basic as her schedule would be considered "official". It just isn't common knowledge.

She made a very stupid mistake.

No. She made an ignorant one out of simple lack of knowledge.

And we've gone around on this more than enough. I've been (justly) accused of digging in on a topic, so time to let this one go. Last word to you.

Very well.

[carpedm9587]

Basically he's calling that out as BS.

Ahh.. I see. I guess I'll leave that one alone. Yet another round through "Michel's biased point of view" is not likely to see any result different from the last X rounds.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ahh.. I see. I guess I'll leave that one alone. Yet another round through "Michel's biased point of view" is not likely to see any result different from the last X rounds.

[carpedm9587]

Actually, yes. I too have my CISSP, and have taught in telecommunucations and information security (specific to telecom) since 1991.

[Bill the Cat]

It's ok Crystal. I think we have come to an agreement. What she did was out of lack of specific knowledge, but was still not illegal and not in the same league as what Hillary did.