3
3
0
White House
Donald Trump
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 7
4
4
0
No. Clinton shouldn’t have done it, neither should have Ivanka. Maj John Bell explains why it may not be in and of itself a legal problem. I also believe it is a civil matter, not criminal. It’s just generally a bad idea due to FOIA requirements and because classified information might get in there.
I think the only interesting thing about this is the lack of condemnation from the people who were so quick to condem Clinton, even at the start when there was no hint of any classified information. Clinton should have know better and after Clinton, Ivanka can’t claim any ignorance on the matter either.
I think the only interesting thing about this is the lack of condemnation from the people who were so quick to condem Clinton, even at the start when there was no hint of any classified information. Clinton should have know better and after Clinton, Ivanka can’t claim any ignorance on the matter either.
(4)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SPC Kevin Ford You know that's not how this works. How this works is everyone chants "lock her up" over and over again for Clinton, but then uses the fact that Clinton didn't get locked up to say that Ivanka is innocent and everything is ok - but still chanting "lock her up" at every rally.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Possibly...
1) It is not a violation of the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act to use a private email account for the conduct of government business, as long as the information is not classified.
2) Any government correspondence sent or received via the private server is preserved.
3) Such information is preserved and turned over to the appropriate authority within 20 days.
However the precedent was set a few years ago that it is OK to be "extremely careless" with classified information, and to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071. Section 2071(a) contains a broad prohibition against destruction of government records or attempts to destroy such records. This section provides that whoever: willfully and unlawfully; conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or attempts to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; or carries away with intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing deposited in any public office may be punished by imprisonment for three years, a $2, 000 fine, or both.
Has any evidence surfaced the Ivanka Trump did so?
However, I guess even then that is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
One can only hope the Democrats in the house spend tens of thousands of hours of man hours investigating this case where no credible evidence has been put forward that classified information was involved. After all there primary agenda item is to impeach the president for anything "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" be damned. Because the rest of their agenda stinks on ice. Of course they will have to make sure that the statute of limitations run out on anyone the Democrats want to protect before they produce an indictment.
1) It is not a violation of the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act to use a private email account for the conduct of government business, as long as the information is not classified.
2) Any government correspondence sent or received via the private server is preserved.
3) Such information is preserved and turned over to the appropriate authority within 20 days.
However the precedent was set a few years ago that it is OK to be "extremely careless" with classified information, and to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071. Section 2071(a) contains a broad prohibition against destruction of government records or attempts to destroy such records. This section provides that whoever: willfully and unlawfully; conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or attempts to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; or carries away with intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing deposited in any public office may be punished by imprisonment for three years, a $2, 000 fine, or both.
Has any evidence surfaced the Ivanka Trump did so?
However, I guess even then that is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
One can only hope the Democrats in the house spend tens of thousands of hours of man hours investigating this case where no credible evidence has been put forward that classified information was involved. After all there primary agenda item is to impeach the president for anything "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" be damned. Because the rest of their agenda stinks on ice. Of course they will have to make sure that the statute of limitations run out on anyone the Democrats want to protect before they produce an indictment.
(4)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SPC Casey Ashfield
It all comes back to fairness. If HRC can break the law and get away with it, the same should go for Ivanka. Either both get punished or neither.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SPC Casey Ashfield - I'm up for both punished, but there is a big difference when using a personal server for Top Secret SCI material and when you destroy your server rather than turn it in.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I guess my first question would be, what government business is she conducting? As far as I understand it, Ivanka Trump is not elected, appointed, or employed as a government official so it seems to me that she wouldn't even have a government email unless one was assigned to her for some specific purpose.
That being the case, if she were to send an email to some government official, wouldn't her personal or business email server be the "normal" way of doing that? And wouldn't the discretion of what government information to divulge via email fall to whichever official she was emailing?
That being the case, if she were to send an email to some government official, wouldn't her personal or business email server be the "normal" way of doing that? And wouldn't the discretion of what government information to divulge via email fall to whichever official she was emailing?
(0)
(0)
LTC Eugene Chu
Ivanka may not be an elected, appointed or employed official, but she still performs duties since she is considered a "special adviser" because her father is President. Furthermore, other articles mention that it was government business, not her own private companies.
(0)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
LTC Eugene Chu - Still, "considered" vs. actually being an official will be a major point of contention, and something that an attorney would eat for lunch. It would really depend on whether she even has a security clearance, and at what level.
(0)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
A lot also depends on the content of the emails. If she's emailing the chief of staff to make lunch plans with dad, yes, someone would probably try to portray that as broadcasting POTUS movements over an unsecured medium, but here on earth we'd all know that was BS.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google