Democrats to probe Ivanka Trump's private email use for government work

[bigwill832]

If they will interview her without putting her under oath, provide immunity to her people prior to any interviews, and allow her to turn over her phones without the sim cards in them.....yeah. Why not use the set precedent?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bigwill832

If they will interview her without putting her under oath, provide immunity to her people prior to any interviews, and allow her to turn over her phones without the sim cards in them.....yeah. Why not use the set precedent?

Too bad Ivanka Trump is not running for office against her Dad....he will not be able to continually bash her over the head with those facts and lead the chant of "Lock her up, Lock her up..."

I'm sure you're bright enough to see the irony to counter your irony

[rexdutchman]

Are Democrats suggesting that sending official and or classified government documents via a private email or stored on a private server is illegal?
However Not running state department and no sever in the bathroom. ? + that Top secret thing oh well

[bigwill832]

Originally Posted by WTF

Too bad Ivanka Trump is not running for office against her Dad....he will not be able to continually bash her over the head with those facts and lead the chant of "Lock her up, Lock her up..."

I'm sure you're bright enough to see the irony to counter your irony

I'm not running on irony here. I'm running on precedent. Plain and simple. One argument made by the Clinton camp was that previous Secretaries of State did the same thing (albeit not setting up private servers but suing personal email accounts). And Mrs. Clinton was interviewed by the FBI, in private, was not put under oath, nor was the interview recorded. Then all of her assistants and staff were given immunity prior to interviews. And they were allowed to turn over their electronic devices with sim cards removed and systems being wiped.

So, yeah. So long as a precedent is being followed and fair application is being used. I'm fine with it. It's a rather simple concept.

[grean]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

a personal email address is not in the same category as having a illegal personal mail server.

Nothing illegal about a person private email server. Nothing illegal about using it for some government correspondence.

Colin Powell did. That's how Clinton got the idea. HOWEVER, AND THIS IS A BIG ALL CAPS HOWEVER,

Powell never used it for anything classified or even close to it or things that he knew shouldn't.

Clinton, while not using it for "Classified" correspondence, was a little more loose with everything else she used it for.

We shall see if that's the case with Ivanka. I'm pretty sure it's okay because last time I checked, she never received any clearance. She would not have any classified information to share unless her father gave it to her.

Her father could tell her about what ever as president, it's his choice what information he gives anyone as we found out earlier.

If she discussed that info, which I doubt they will find that she did, then she could be in some warm water.

[ElisabethWhispers]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

More evidence of the war on conservative women by the Democrats.

Wow. Try to stay away from quoting platitudes but if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black.

Jeesh

[Austin Ellen]

Oh please. Conservative women get bashed way more then Democratic women.

[goodman0422]

Perhaps FBI director Wray should write a letter of exoneration for her now. So it's ready when the investigation begins... I mean ends.

[GingerKatt]

Hmmmp. I only clicked on this thread because the only part of the title that showed up on the main page was;

"Democrats to probe Ivanka".

It sounded sexy. It's not. My mind just works that way when I see the word "probe".
But on a political note, I hope she and Big Daddy DO go to prison.
Hillary is my girl. Voted for her once and Bill twice. 2020 is her year!!!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Oh please. Conservative women get bashed way more then Democratic women.

Do you mean liberal women?

Liberal women that want others to have more freedom of choice, are you saying those women get bashed less?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bigwill832

I'm not running on irony here. I'm running on precedent. Plain and simple. One argument made by the Clinton camp was that previous Secretaries of State did the same thing (albeit not setting up private servers but suing personal email accounts). And Mrs. Clinton was interviewed by the FBI, in private, was not put under oath, nor was the interview recorded. Then all of her assistants and staff were given immunity prior to interviews. And they were allowed to turn over their electronic devices with sim cards removed and systems being wiped.

So, yeah. So long as a precedent is being followed and fair application is being used. I'm fine with it. It's a rather simple concept.

You do understand irony?

The GOP investigated Clinton for over two years and Donald Trump bashed Clinton over the head with this email crap for over a year.

Do you think that is wtf we should do with his daughter?

[rexdutchman]

The Dems are trying to compare apples and buses Oh the irony ,,,,,,,,

[GingerKatt]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

The Dems are trying to compare apples and buses Oh the irony ,,,,,,,,

No, the Dems are trying to protect our constititian from an orange skinned, white eyed, hair plugged, bleach blonde wanna be demi god.
And his nepotistic family who aren't any more qualified for goverment work than the orange thing is.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by GingerKatt

No, the Dems are trying to protect our constititian from an orange skinned, white eyed, hair plugged, bleach blonde wanna be demi god.
And his nepotistic family who aren't any more qualified for goverment work than the orange thing is.

No. The dims are doing their level best to destroy this country.

The dims refused to accept the election results in 2000, 2016 and more recently in 2018 in Georgia and Florida.

The dims passed the abortion known as Odumbocare that couldn't pass muster in the Supreme Court except for some shenanigans -- reinterpreting a "fee" (which dims said it was) as a "tax" (which dims said it wasn't) -- by the Supreme Court.

The dims' recent campaign mantra included abolishing the very agencies created to defend this nation's borders and doing away with Constitutionally established institutions such as the Electoral College, the Supreme Court, and the Senate.

Now, the dims falsely equate hildebeest's use of an illegal server to transmit classified, SAP material as no worse than what Ivanka is accused of doing is a mark of dim criminality.

[rico7]

[QUOTE=GingerKatt;1061079885]Hmmmp. I only clicked on this thread because the only part of the title that showed up on the main page was;

"Democrats to probe Ivanka".

THIS


I'd like to probe Ivanka - in more ways than one...