# Ivanka Trump used PERSONAL EMAILS!!!!?!?????



## Attacker3 (Nov 21, 2018)

You've probably heard in the past couple days about Ivanka Trump using a personal email account! Holy moley! This is the story of the centruy, and the entire Trump administration is fucking going to be toppled!

Except that's not the case. This has been known to Congress for 14 months, and the differences between Hillary Clinton's emails and Ivanka Trump's emails is that 

Hillary was dealing with classified information with her emails, with matters ranging from national security to ongoing proceedings within the White House, stuff that's meant to be kept quiet.
Hillary tried deleting all her emails when she was found out, however, Ivanka has been open and up-front with congress in regards to her personal email.
Personal email accounts are allowed, but only for things that don't involve highly secretive things. *They must also comply with federal records, which with Hillary Clinton, this was actively bypassed and ignored*
Big differences here. Nobody cared that Hillary used a personal email, but people did care that it was a secret server that was sending out classified information that was open to attack from hackers that could use this information to damage the security of the USA.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 21, 2018)

Probably only making  deal out of it because she's not Hillary, nor a liberal leaning person.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

Lol, I knew this thread would be about justifying and excusing away Ivanka's behavior.  God forbid you come to the realization that nobody should be locked up for some e-mails, and that Republicans have been incredibly hyperbolic and hypocritical on the issue.


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Lol, I knew this thread would be about justifying and excusing away Ivanka's behavior.  God forbid you come to the realization that nobody should be locked up for some e-mails, and that Republicans have been incredibly hyperbolic and hypocritical on the issue.



Context is key, and the context is different for both of them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

One deals in national secrets, the other deals with meetings with her personal assistant. Big difference, I feel.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Context is key, and the context is different for both of them.


Yeah, the context is different, since Ivanka wasn't even using a private server.  Her e-mails are much easier to access for hackers.  Also nobody is going to make a serious request to lock her up over this, the story just highlights hypocrisy.  Fox News is _still_ covering Hillary's e-mails to this day, they gave about 30 seconds to Ivanka and then shut up about it forever.


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, the context is different, since Ivanka wasn't even using a private server.  Her e-mails are much easier to access for hackers.  Also nobody is going to make a serious request to lock her up over this, the story just highlights hypocrisy.



Well first off, nobody cares if her emails are hacked, because they're not dealing with national secrets. Are you just not reading this part, or are you actively tuning it out of your brain? *National Secrets*. Let's say that hacker did get into Ivanka's email. Guess what you'd find? You would find messages of her asking her assistant when she was going to meet up with people, and reminders of meetings. Wow! It's fucking nothing.

And why would people want to lock Ivanka up for doing nothing that harms the security of the USA? She's done nothing wrong, assuming that she's complied with the Presidential Records Act, which it looks like she has. She's broken no laws, hasn't put anyone in danger, and hasn't done anything secretive. The same can't be said for Hillary. I'm sorry Xzi, but you're just plain wrong in this case.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Well first off, nobody cares if her emails are hacked, because they're not dealing with national secrets. Are you just not reading this part, or are you actively tuning it out of your brain? *National Secrets*. Let's say that hacker did get into Ivanka's email. Guess what you'd find? You would find messages of her asking her assistant when she was going to meet up with people, and reminders of meetings. Wow! It's fucking nothing.
> 
> And why would people want to lock Ivanka up for doing nothing that harms the security of the USA? She's done nothing wrong, assuming that she's complied with the Presidential Records Act, which it looks like she has. She's broken no laws, hasn't put anyone in danger, and hasn't done anything secretive. The same can't be said for Hillary. I'm sorry Xzi, but you're just plain wrong in this case.


You're taking her word at face value, which is a really bad idea when it comes to any Trump.  We won't know what's in Ivanka's e-mails without an investigation, and I'm sure that's something she wants to avoid.  As I said, it's mostly a non-issue for me, just as Hillary's e-mails were.

Meanwhile, you've got Donald helping to cover up a journalists' murder ordered by the Saudi crown prince.  Kind of a bigger deal.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 21, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Are you just not reading this part, or are you actively tuning it out of your brain? *National Secrets*.



Liberals don't care about facts, so they just skip over them and don't bother to read them especially if they don't agree with how they "feel".  They only spew their opinions with how a topic makes them feel.  Not putting Xzi or anybody else here in a category.  I'm just saying that even though you state facts, people will just disagree with you based on their opinions.

I haven't read too much on this situation yet, but it sounds like it's just another case of "they did something similar to what they are complaining about what we did, so what we did was ok".


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You're taking her word at face value, which is a really bad idea when it comes to any Trump.  We won't know what's in Ivanka's e-mails without an investigation, and I'm sure that's something she wants to avoid.  As I said, it's mostly a non-issue for me, just as Hillary's e-mails were.
> 
> Meanwhile, you've got Donald helping to cover up a journalists' murder ordered by the Saudi crown prince.  Kind of a bigger deal.


Hilary's emails are a non issue for you? That clears up a lot of things, then...


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

morvoran said:


> Liberals don't care about facts, so they just skip over them and don't bother to read them especially if they don't agree with how they "feel".  They only spew their opinions with how a topic makes them feel.  Not putting Xzi or anybody else here in a category.  I'm just saying that even though you state facts, people will just disagree with you based on their opinions.
> 
> I haven't read too much on this situation yet, but it sounds like it's just another case of "they did something similar to what they are complaining about what we did, so what we did was ok".


I mean, if we're talking facts, then Colin Powell was the first to use a private e-mail server at the state department.  He recommended Hillary do the same, as the state department servers were ludicrously outdated (and they were even hacked during Hillary's time as SOS).

If we're looking at this objectively and not through the lens of emotion, then these are more rules and guidelines being broken than strict laws.  The punishment should you be found in violation of them is a slap on the wrist, there's virtually no chance of jail time.  Conservatives were deluding themselves from the start on that one.



Memoir said:


> Hilary's emails are a non issue for you? That clears up a lot of things, then...


Trump uses an unsecured iPhone to make and receive important phone calls every day[1].  I don't care about some e-mails that were never intercepted because Republicans don't care about keeping _any_ information away from our foreign adversaries.  Putin and the Saudis own this country under Trump.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...itive-information-unsecured-cellphone-n924376


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 21, 2018)

Still convinced people have it out for Trump, not because he's breaking the law, but only because many Liberals still have an eternal grudge and bitterness over the fact that their precious Clinton or Bernie never got the electoral vote.  Never mind about the law, they want him out because he's not a Liberal. Change my mind.


----------



## supermist (Nov 21, 2018)

Trump has made a pretty penny off the tax payers by charging the secret service to stay and eat on his properties on multiple occasions. He's made far more than Obama did on his presidential salary in 8 years in his first year as president.

In addtion to that, we're fronting the expenses of the first lady's hotel stays abroad. This is just one of many reasons people want him out.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Still convinced people have it out for Trump, not because he's breaking the law, but only because many Liberals still have an eternal grudge and bitterness over the fact that their precious Clinton or Bernie never got the electoral vote.  Never mind about the law, they want him out because he's not a Liberal. Change my mind.


He's the worst president we've had in my lifetime.  He simply doesn't grasp the role.  Even GWB knew that the president is meant to unite people, not divide.  In the last couple weeks alone, Trump has attacked California wild fire victims, the guy who killed Bin Laden, and forced troops to spend Thanksgiving at the border for a political stunt.  That last one is costing taxpayers millions, and technically it also labels the US a war zone.

Then there's the list of broken campaign promises, aka all of them:

build the wall - X
lock her up - X
Repeal Obamacare - X
Eliminate ISIS in 30 days - X
healthcare for everyone - X
Denuclearize North Korea - X
complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country - X
4% GDP - X
amazing trade deals - X
leave NAFTA - X
And the fact that his administration has passed only _one_ piece of legislation, a tax break for the ultra-wealthy.


----------



## supermist (Nov 21, 2018)

And here's some proof:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/16/trump-businesses-money-campaign-federal-agencies

http://fortune.com/2018/11/16/melania-trump-hotel-bill-canada/

No president on either side of the political spectrum has come even close to this.

Not to mention his handling of the journalist murder as he stands to lose profit in Saudi Arabia if he were to act on it.


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 21, 2018)

I wouldn't mind skimming through those as I did with Hildabeast's (undelected) emails. Though I doubt there'd likewise be gleaming crime evidence. Time to work, wikileaks. RIP Seth Rich.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> I wouldn't mind skimming through those as I did with Hildabeast's (undelected) emails. Though I doubt there'd likewise be gleaming crime evidence. Time to work, wikileaks. RIP Seth Rich.


The RNC was hacked along with the DNC back during the campaign, but Wikileaks chose to only publish DNC e-mails.  I wouldn't expect them to release Ivanka's e-mails even if they obtained them, since Wikileaks long ago decided to become a partisan organization.


----------



## RaptorDMG (Nov 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The RNC was hacked along with the DNC back during the campaign, but Wikileaks chose to only publish DNC e-mails.  I wouldn't expect them to release Ivanka's e-mails even if they obtained them, since Wikileaks long ago decided to become a partisan organization.


Just because they were hacked does not mean the data was sent to wikileaks unless you have a source that says it was


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The RNC was hacked along with the DNC back during the campaign, but Wikileaks chose to only publish DNC e-mails.  I wouldn't expect them to release Ivanka's e-mails even if they obtained them, since Wikileaks long ago decided to become a partisan organization.


Surely you should be able to point me to where those emails are stored. Or is the internet partisan too?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> Surely you should be able to point me to where those emails are stored. Or is the internet partisan too?


I have no clue where they're stored.  I assume it would be with the people who obtained them, namely the members of the GRU who also hacked the DNC:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-russian-hackers-had-rnc-data-but-didnt-release-it



RaptorDMG said:


> Just because they were hacked does not mean the data was sent to wikileaks unless you have a source that says it was


True, but if they had access to one batch of e-mails, it seems likely they had access to the other batch too.


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 21, 2018)

Some russian hackers stole a bunch of data, but only part of it is available online because wikileaks is the only hosting platform in the world and it's obviously partisan, because they keep posting things I don't like. This is what liberals believe.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> Some russian hackers stole a bunch of data, but only part of it is available online because wikileaks is the only hosting platform in the world and it's obviously partisan, because they keep posting things I don't like. This is what liberals believe.


Wikileaks obviously had access to what the GRU had stolen through hacking, I'm not sure what would make you believe that information was widely available to any site that wanted to host it, though.

It is sad because they used to be a reliable source for stuff like the Panama papers, which included information on anybody who was evading taxes.  Not just one political party or the other.


----------



## supermist (Nov 21, 2018)

Uh, Wikileaks even said that they had obtained RNC emails too, but that there was "nothing notable" to release to the public.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

supermist said:


> Uh, Wikileaks even said that they had obtained RNC emails too, but that there was "nothing notable" to release to the public.


Yeah, Assange has never exactly been subtle about his hatred for Hillary.  The only other person who might hate her more is Putin, so it makes sense that the Russians worked with Wikileaks during the election.


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Wikileaks obviously had access to what the GRU had stolen through hacking, I'm not sure what would make you believe that information was widely available to any site that wanted to host it, though.
> 
> It is sad because they used to be a reliable source for stuff like the Panama papers, which included information on anybody who was evading taxes.  Not just one political party or the other.


By GRU, are you referring to the *Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation*?
The people who work under Putin, who was greatly helped by Clinton, by the way, through the Uranium One deal?
You think they'd simply give a bunch of data to wikileaks, and leave it solely to wikileaks for publishing just anything they'd want? And the rest would disappear forever, just because wikileaks is somehow partisan, right-wing partisan while being sponsored mainly by leftist organizations?
Are you on weed?


----------



## supermist (Nov 21, 2018)

It really is a shame because they also released the reuters video where those drones attacked innocent people by mistake but the military decided to cover it up to continue receiving support for the war effort.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> The people who work under Putin, who was greatly helped by Clinton, by the way, through the Uranium One deal?


Bigfoot, pizza pedos, uranium Seth Richs, oh my!


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 21, 2018)

Nice argument.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> Nice argument.


It's no longer an argument when you start bringing conspiracy theories into it.  Any claim made without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence.


----------



## supermist (Nov 21, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> Nice argument.



I mean, do you have some reliable sources to back your claims?


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's no longer an argument when you start bringing conspiracy theories into it.  Any claim made without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence.


Because the evidence is on wikileaks, right? But that begs to question, isn't the whole topic about wikileaks a conspiracy theory then? It should be time for you to leave this thread alone.



supermist said:


> I mean, do you have some reliable sources to back your claims?


Sure, which claim?


----------



## supermist (Nov 21, 2018)

All of them.


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 21, 2018)

supermist said:


> All of them.


Not if you're this lazy.


----------



## supermist (Nov 21, 2018)

That's the way the burden of proof works. I've provded sources for all of my claims thus far in this thread.


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 21, 2018)

supermist said:


> That's the way the burden of proof works. I've provded sources for all of my claims thus far in this thread.


"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation of a party in a *trial*". That's not how it works at all.
If you have one specific thing you'd like to have sourced, I can fetch it for you. But you have to be a nice boy. And give me some time as I'll have dinner and shower now.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> Because the evidence is on wikileaks, right? But that begs to question, isn't the whole topic about wikileaks a conspiracy theory then? It should be time for you to leave this thread alone.


If it's factual it shouldn't be hard to find more than one source, especially when that first source is so shaky.

I completely understand the need for conservatives to be conspiracy-focused, though, sometimes the reality of what Trump is doing to the long-term image of the party must be hard to deal with.  Much easier to construct a fantasy where Hillary is responsible for anything bad that's happened in the last ~200 years.  It's not going to win you any elections as the general public sees right through the stupidity of that charade, but at least you'll be comfy inside your own head.


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If it's factual it shouldn't be hard to find more than one source, especially when that first source is so shaky.


The sources in question are the DNC leaks, which of I know are hosted on wikileaks and are in no way hard to find. And again, if wikileaks (and the leaks) is shaky and partisan and whatever, why do you even bother with this topic? I sincerely recommend you read up on the contents of the DNC leak, or just leave the matter alone to those who have the capacity to actually research on information instead of spewing nonsense on some gaming forum. All of what I said is very reliably sourced, up to affirmations of you on weed.



Xzi said:


> I completely understand the need for conservatives to be conspiracy-focused, though, sometimes the reality of what Trump is doing to the long-term image of the party must be hard to deal with.


Not that I care about your opinion, but it's unwise to assume I'm conservative or whatever and somehow make it part of your argumentation.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> The sources in question are the DNC leaks, which of I know are hosted on wikileaks and are in no way hard to find. And again, if wikileaks (and the leaks) is shaky and partisan and whatever, why do you even bother with this topic?


The thread topic has nothing to do with Wikileaks, and you were the one who initially brought it up.  I've sourced my claim that they decided to become partisan as an organization around 2016.  Here's another article proving that they have a political agenda because of Russian government leaks that they declined to publish:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/1...-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/



bodefuceta said:


> All of what I said is very reliably sourced


At this point nobody should consider Wikileaks to be a reliable source any more than Facebook is.  Again, you're free to desperately cling to conspiracy theories, but it's not going to change anything or be convincing to the majority.


----------

