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

[rogue06]

Pity for your conspiracy that that part is fictional.

Only in the outer limits of the Twilight Zone that you and your ilk dwell. Meanwhile, in reality, where the rest of us reside...

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391031/Game-set-match-classified-emails-Bombshell-email-shows-Hillary-Clinton-telling-aide-secure-information-send-nonsecure.html

Game, set, match on 'classified' emails? Bombshell email shows Hillary Clinton telling aide to take 'secure' information and 'send nonsecure'[/url]

• Latest release of former secretary of state's emails totaled more than 3,000 pages and came after midnight Friday
• New batch includes a 2011 email in which Clinton instructed an aide to strip a classified document of its identifying markings and send it via non-secure email
• Republicans blast latest release, and GOP Senate Judiciary Committee calls email 'disturbing'
• State Department had little follow-up information late Friday afternoon

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton has some 'splaining to do, after a damaging email surfaced early Friday that appeared to show her instructing an aide to send classified information through 'nonsecure' email - after removing classified headings from the document.

The 2011 email was included in more than 3,000 pages of emails released by the State Department at 1 a.m. Friday, as part of an effort to make up for a late December release that was smaller than expected.

The emails - which have been ordered by a federal judge - have dogged Clinton's front-running presidential campaign for almost the past year.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: New Clinton Emails Show Mixed Concerns on Security of Information

On a Friday morning in June 2011, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had waited more than 12 hours for a set of talking points to be sent to her, a top aide told her the delay was because staff members were having problems sending faxes that would be secure from probing eyes.

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Mrs. Clinton responded in an email released early Friday by the State Department, one of about 3,000 newly released pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. Of those, 66 documents contained classified information.

The note she sent to the top aide, Jacob J. Sullivan, instructing him how to strip sensitive material of official markings and send it in a “nonsecure” way is heavily redacted, so it is unknown what the talking points were about.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Did Hillary Clinton ask aides to strip classified markings off a document?

Hillary Clinton apparently demanded members of her staff strip the classified markings from a set of seemingly classified talking points after aides had trouble sending the talking points using secure fax.

In an email made public early Friday morning, Clinton asked one of her top advisers, Jake Sullivan, to send the talking points "nonsecure" after they were delayed overnight.

"They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it," Sullivan wrote in June 2011 after learning an unspecified party hadn't sent the requested documents the previous evening, as they were supposed to have done.

"If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure," Clinton replied.

While the exchange is partially redacted and unclassified, giving few clues as to what the talking points in question involved, the email raises new questions about Clinton's treatment of classified information amid an FBI investigation and a nearly year-long controversy.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

And from liberal^[1 professor of law at the George Washington University Law School, Jonathan Turley:

Source: Newly Released Email Shows Clinton Instructing Aide To Strip Header and Send Information Over Unsecured Lines After Objections Over Security

The e-mail scandal involving former secretary of state Hillary Clinton has continued to unfold, as we have been discussing. The number of classified emails have now grown to 1340. While the vast majority have low level classification, a few contained information classified at the secret level. This is not the first such allegation of someone stripping classification headers in scandal. The mishandling of classified information is a crime and the level of gross negligence in the use of the private server by Clinton is staggering. However, there has long been a good-faith debate over whether Clinton is being given a pass on a criminal investigation by the Obama Administration or whether her actions (while negligent) were not criminal in nature. A recent story could change that debate considerably if critics are proven correct. One of the emails released recently reportedly shows Clinton instructing an aide to strip off classification markings from a document and to send by unsecure means. Such an act could be charged as a criminal offense under federal classification laws. However, it is not clear that any email was sent and the Clinton staff could claim that she was referring to clearly unclassified material contained in a document. There has been a suggestion that the material in question were “talking points” that were meant to be public or were clearly unclassified.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Of course if it wasn't classified then there would be no need to instruct Sullivan to "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading" (strip sensitive material of official markings), would there?


And thanks to the Internet Archives Wayback Machine, here is a copy of the heavily redacted email exchange released by the State Department that you wrongly claim is fictional.





1. As Wikipedia puts it:

Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda" have led liberal and progressive thinkers to consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian."

Of course for nutters that think that Joseph Stalin was a right winger he's probably not a True Liberal™

[rogue06]

American Oversight is hardly an unbiased, independent agency, though. Six of the seventeen people in its 'team' have previously worked for Democrat politicians, whereas precisely none are listed as having worked for Republicans; two more seem obviously left-leaning (one working for Planned Parenthood, and another investigating 'far-right' groups). That's at least eight out of seventeen that are left-leaning in their politics and/or connected to Democrat politicians; and none who are right-leaning or connected to Republican politicians.

For liberals that's the very definition of non-partisan and balanced.

It reminds me of some of the "non-partisan" vote drives of the past.

Back in 2000 Eric Schmitt, a reporter for the New York Times wrote about MTV's "Rock the Vote" campaign saying

Rock the Vote, a non-partisan, non-profit voter registration organization with close ties to Democrats, has produced several new public service announcements that … show young people confronting a political system dominated by special interests or biased law enforcement officials.

A "non-partisan" organization "with close ties to Democrats? Yeah... pull the other one.

Again in 2004, MTV’s Rock the Vote campaign still described itself as a non-partisan organization trying to increase voter turnout among the youth, yet sent out fake draft cards to nearly 640,000 people via e-mail with the headline: "You’ve Been Drafted." The e-mail goes on to warn that, "real cards may be in the mail soon if the situation doesn’t improve."

This charge is based upon a demonstrably bogus e-mail campaign that claimed that then President Bush had a secret plan to reinstate the draft, a conspiracy theory that the Democrats had repeatedly tried to exploit. A Rock the Vote spokesperson insisted the e-mail blitz was purely non-partisan.

Also in 2004, the activist group Voices for Working America was repeatedly described as a "non-partisan" organization by the MSM, yet it was funded by Democrats to get out the vote in Democrat areas with slogans like "We Will Not Let What Happened in 2000 Happen Again," when canvassing for voters in Florida (a reference to the close election and recount in that state).

[JimL]

Whataboutism at its finest.

Exactly. "But what about Hillary!" Hillary was investigated, she most likely lost the election due to that investigation. Now we are going to investigate Jared and Ivanka. Fair enough, yes?

[Cow Poke]

Exactly. "But what about Hillary!" Hillary was investigated, she most likely lost the election due to that investigation.

Well, the investigation just helped reveal what a sorry choice she would have been, but.... sure.

Now we are going to investigate Jared and Ivanka. Fair enough, yes?

When the Democrats officially take control of the house, there will be no end to investigations. Whether they will be fair remains to be seen, but the same can be true for so many other investigations in the past.

[Sparko]

Exactly. "But what about Hillary!" Hillary was investigated, she most likely lost the election due to that investigation. Now we are going to investigate Jared and Ivanka. Fair enough, yes?

every time we bring up what Obama did in response to something Trump is accused of, you guys cry "whataboutism!" -- now you guys are using whataboutism "what about Ivanka?" to excuse Hillary.

ironic.

I say go ahead and lock up Ivanka, just as soon as you toss Hillary and her staff in the slammer.

[Mountain Man]

"You want to convict me for reckless driving? But what about that guy with the broken taillight!"

[Tassman]

American Oversight is hardly an unbiased, independent agency, though. Six of the seventeen people in its 'team' have previously worked for Democrat politicians, whereas precisely none are listed as having worked for Republicans; two more seem obviously left-leaning (one working for Planned Parenthood, and another investigating 'far-right' groups). That's at least eight out of seventeen that are left-leaning in their politics and/or connected to Democrat politicians; and none who are right-leaning or connected to Republican politicians.

I would have thought that these are the ideal credentials for uncovering the facts and holding a Republican government accountable for it’s behaviour.

https://www.americanoversight.org/

[MaxVel]

I would have thought that these are the ideal credentials for uncovering the facts and holding a Republican government accountable for it’s behaviour.

https://www.americanoversight.org/

Yes, you would think that, wouldn't you.

[Mountain Man]

I would have thought that these are the ideal credentials for uncovering the facts and holding a Republican government accountable for it’s behaviour.

https://www.americanoversight.org/

If you applied your logic consistently then you would have to agree that Breitbart is an ideal news source for exposing liberal corruption.

[carpedm9587]

And apparently, the "official business" emails were from before this appointment.

According to several articles (for example, this one) the emails happened "throughout 2017."

[carpedm9587]

every time we bring up what Obama did in response to something Trump is accused of, you guys cry "whataboutism!" -- now you guys are using whataboutism "what about Ivanka?" to excuse Hillary.

ironic.

I say go ahead and lock up Ivanka, just as soon as you toss Hillary and her staff in the slammer.

I would say everyone is entitled to due process. The matter should be investigated and appropriate action taken based on the results.

Chants of "lock her up" were inappropriate with respect to Ms. Clinton, and likewise inappropriate with respect to Ms. Trump.

[Bill the Cat]

According to several articles (for example, this one) the emails happened "throughout 2017."

From the article:

“While transitioning into government, after she was given an official account but until the White House provided her the same guidance they had given others who started before she did, Ms. Trump sometimes used her personal account, almost always for logistics and scheduling concerning her family,” he [Peter Mirijanian] said in a statement.


I've seen several versions of the story, and none list any specifically named "official business" outside of her schedule. Until I see something of substance that can be called "official government business" outside of her own family's travel schedule, I'll remain unimpressed by the "watchdogs" at American Oversight...

[carpedm9587]

From the article:

“While transitioning into government, after she was given an official account but until the White House provided her the same guidance they had given others who started before she did, Ms. Trump sometimes used her personal account, almost always for logistics and scheduling concerning her family,” he [Peter Mirijanian] said in a statement.


I've seen several versions of the story, and none list any specifically named "official business" outside of her schedule. Until I see something of substance that can be called "official government business" outside of her own family's travel schedule, I'll remain unimpressed by the "watchdogs" at American Oversight...

I have no position on "American Oversight" as I have not looked into the group. I am simply reporting what is being reported in several sources - that the use of the emails was throughout 2017. What you do with that information is entirely up to you.

[Bill the Cat]

Eh? That's not my understanding. What I took from the saga was that using a personal email account to conduct any govt business wasn't allowed.

That's not right. You CAN use a private email address to work on non-classified material. It's not ideal, but it is allowed.

Source: https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2015/nr15-65.html

As the Archivist testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in September 2013, “The National Archives discourages the use of private email accounts to conduct Federal business, but understands that there are situations where such use does occur.” Congress amended the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act in November 2014 to prohibit the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they copy or forward any such emails into their government account within 20 days. See the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 (Public Law 113-187) codified at 44 U.S.C. 2911.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, because Powell's use of a private email address to conduct government business wasn't allowed. The main difference being that Colin Powell was an early-adopter and the government bureaucrats hadn't yet banned the practice quite so thoroughly in Powell's day.

Actually, when Powell used it, there was no standing regulation against using personal email addresses. The State Department did not issue their policies until after he left the position of SoS.

[Bill the Cat]

I have no position on "American Oversight" as I have not looked into the group.

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

I am simply reporting what is being reported in several sources - that the use of the emails was throughout 2017. What you do with that information is entirely up to you.

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.