Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are
from the winning-streak-continues dept
Making American Political Hypocrisy Great Again:
President Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has used a private email account to conduct and discuss official White House business dozens of times, his lawyer confirmed Sunday.
Kushner used the private account through his first nine months in government service, even as the president continued to criticize his opponent in the 2016 presidential election, Democrat Hillary Clinton, for her use of a private email account for government business.
And, because once is never enough:
Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to communicate with a member of President Trump’s administration, a watchdog group said Monday.
American Oversight obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that show Ivanka Trump, a senior White House adviser to her father, used a personal email account to contact Small Business Administration Administrator Linda McMahon in February.
It's not as though anyone isn't aware of their responsibility to use official government email accounts for official government business. There's a duty to preserve records that goes hand-in-hand with FOIA law. Those who choose to do business this way are either lazy or devious. And it doesn't necessarily have to be one or the other.
At this point, the criticisms that paved the way to Trump's win can almost all be levied against the new administration. All we're really waiting for is someone to show up with a birth certificate showing Donald Trump isn't a natural-born US citizen.
Clinton's excuse for her continuous use of a private email account was "convenience." Guess what Kushner's is:
Once in the White House, Kushner used his private account for convenience from time to time — especially when he was traveling or using a personal laptop, according to two people familiar with his practice.
As innocuous as the use appears to be -- at least according to obtained documents and unidentified sources' statements -- the point is people in government positions know better than to continue using private email accounts for government business. There's no excuse at this point -- not with more than 25 years of mainstream email use and a half-century of federal public records law.
That officials continue to do this highlights a flaw in public records laws: the fact that they're written by people with the most interest in keeping some communications secret. Private email accounts are used because there's a good likelihood courts won't force every email to be turned over in the event of a records request lawsuit. Even better, since the chance of an actual lawsuit being filed is low enough, many public figures feel these dice are safe to roll.
This isn't solely a Trump Administration problem, but it's definitely a case of double standards. We expect those from our politicians, sadly. But we don't expect them on the level we've seen over the past several months, where political opponents are savaged by administration officials (including the president) for behavior Trump's own team engages in.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: convenience, email, foia, hillary clinton, ivanka trump, jared kushner, private email, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ahem. Of course Trump will vociferate against this egregious abuse just like when Clinton did it, right, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprises me not...
Saw it coming and it is still hilarious!
or...
should I say... Hillary-ous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But this is WONDERFUL news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But this is WONDERFUL news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was always a double standard.
Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts including AOL for classified emails. In fact Colin Powell advised Hillary to do so.
Then there's Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy, tens of millions of White House emails sent through private servers. Millions of them lost. With the same security issues.
And Jeb!, who as governor used his own server against the rules and as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants.
And while it's not exactly the same, 2016 candidates Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal each have their own email scandals. Mitt Romney too.
And of course there's all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests, security be damned.
That the Trump administration is doing the same should surprise no-one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I forgot: Mike Pence used an AOL account while Indiana's governor to discuss homeland security matters and security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The volunteer role is why people were so uneasy, she wasn't accountable to a lot of rules and policies, and that's what led to her becoming an actual employee. Until then, if you don't hold employees like Clinton accountable, you sure as hell can't hold a volunteer accountable.
She can be held accountable for anything as of March 30th.
Kushner is a different story. He's not and was not a volunteer during those times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Technically correct, but utter BS. Ivanka's presence in White House meetings and role as advisor to the President was well publicized and documented. March 30th simply made it official.
Utterly irrelevant, from a security standpoint.
Suppose Hillary had played the "I don't use email" card and had an aide use their private email to send the same emails. If that aide were a private non-government employee, would that have made it all peachy-keen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hillary AND her aides were government employees. And Hillary had been one for many years. She had no excuse. This was Ivanka's first pass doing government work, as a volunteer, and they've only identified one email in the article. It's not even worth discussing, unless they determine it continued as a practice for more than a couple of days.
Hillary was SoS for what, 4 years? And swapped classified info? And still wasn't dealt with? And we're reading about them discovering Ivanka sent one? Utterly stupid comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Edward Snowden wasn't a government employee. He worked for NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, which was entrusted with government information. You know, just like Ivanka was a private citizen before March 30, while working in the White House advising the President.
By your standard, Snowden can't be prosecuted.
One more time, what if she used a privately employed aide - much like Ivanka - to send the emails.
"Deal with" her, and you have to "deal with" Mike Pence, Bush II, Cheney, Rove, Powell, Rice, Jeb! and all the others in the same way and for the same reasons. And now those in the Trump administration.
Which is probably a good idea. Or simply investigate why essentially no-one in Washington was willing to use government email servers. But as long as folks like you insist on an investigations focused ONLY on Hillary - and take offense to investigating the rest doing the exact same thing - that won't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Come on man. Stop being part of the problem. This is an absolute total reach and is playing right into the partisan politics crowd. Snowden signed all sorts of documents saying he wouldn't do what he did, and I'm sure held a security clearance and the like. Ivanka made sure to copy in a government address, and then advised one of the reasons she became a government employee was to preserve records. Even if she's being disingenuous, and you can argue she is if you want, it's apples and oranges. A total reach... Same with the Hillary comparison.
We can find plenty of reasons not to like the current administration without people taking something simple like this and trying to turn it into something it's not. Your detracting from the real issues with this shit, it's not helping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off. That almost certainly gave her access to higher-level secrets than Snowden ever had access to.
If Snowden's private employment included government scrutiny - instead of his leak being a civil matter with his employer - then why would it not be the same for Ivanka?
If not being *officially* a government employee excuses Ivanka from any security scrutiny, then why wouldn't it for a privately employed Hillary aide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"citations needed"
"If Snowden's private employment included government scrutiny - instead of his leak being a civil matter with his employer - then why would it not be the same for Ivanka?"
Snowden held a Top Secret Clearance. Did Ivanka hold one at the time? If she did, do you honestly think sending a non-classified email while coping in someone who has a Government account to preserve the email is the same as dumping thousands of classified emails into the public domain? I don't think Snowden is a criminal, I think he will be remembered as a hero, but you can't honestly be comparing the two? Your better than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off.
This is one case where no further citations are needed.
In his government job. That no doubt helped him get a job at Booz. But now he was no longer at the NSA, no longer a government employee.
Sure, it seems self-evident (a concept you have trouble with above) that he should still need a security clearance. But the same equally goes for Ivanka's White House advisor role.
One more time: Ivanka - before March 30 - was the President's advisor. In any PUBLICIZED White House proceeding - like meetings with foreign leaders - she was there. We know from reports that the role didn't stop when the cameras were turned off. That almost certainly gave her access to higher-level secrets than Snowden ever had access to.
You can keep deflecting from that, and I'll keep repeating it.
For that matter, you're deflecting just by focusing on Ivanka. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and advisers Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn and Stephen Miller also used email accounts for government-related emails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's possible yes. However it's conjecture and hearsay. You have no proof.
"If not being *officially* a government employee excuses Ivanka from any security scrutiny, then why wouldn't it for a privately employed Hillary aide?"
Did you even read the sources for the story? She wasn't "excused", she didn't actually have a government email address at the time because she wasn't a government employee. How they hell can anyone pitch such a fit about someone not using government email if she didn't even have one to use? Realizing the partisan shit throw that was inevitably going to happen, she at least copied in her chief of staff so that the email trail was preserved.
"However, Ivanka Trump copied her chief of staff, Julie Radford, on the emails. In them, Radford has a White House email account."
""Ivanka Trump was not a federal employee in February. She elected to become a federal employee in March. At the time she did so, she made clear that one of her reasons for doing so was to ensure that she would have access to government-issued communications devices and receive an official email account to protect government records,"
If Hillary's aid wasn't a government employee, and as such didn't actually have a government email address, then as long as she's not sending classified info I don't think anyone gives a shit how she sends her email.
Hillary was accused/investigated for breaking the law. So is/was Snowden. If the current administration is/was breaking the law, I'm sure the Democrats will ride this like a rented mule until something's done.... but I think this is much about nothing.
Directly from the cited sources:
“Fewer than 100 emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account. These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal rather than his White House address."
Your being childish with your comparisons. I'm just going to leave it at this. reply if you want, but I'm done with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Donald Trump, his team, and the Republicans tore Hillary Clinton apart over using private email to conduct government business with a security clearance. Regardless of legality, regardless of consequences (or lack thereof), it is hypocritical for Trump and his team to then engage in that behavior themselves. If it was wrong for her, it is wrong for them.
It is a double standard for Republicans to condemn Democratic leadership while giving Republican leadership a free pass. For that matter, it's a double standard for the Democrats to condemn Republican leadership while giving Democratic leadership a free pass. So far, however, most of the condemnation I've seen has been on the rhetoric and attacks of the campaign ("lock her up" vs "lock him up") rather than the actual use of email itself.
By shrugging your shoulders at this, you are conceding defeat to partisan bullshit, and accepting their mediocrity- which I believe is their goal, so success for them! If it was wrong for Clinton and her people, it's wrong for Trump and his people. If it was okay for the former, then it's okay for the latter. I personally don't really care which position you hold- I believe Clinton's server was a deeply problematic molehill that everybody treated like the eruption of Pompeii. What angers me most about this current situation is the strong implication that many of the people in that previous sentence didn't actually care. They made this big show about national security and didn't actually mean a word of it; they fear-mongered people into believing a vote for them was a vote for security, and not a word of it was true. Trump's team is making it appear as if they consider American security to be a tool to win the election, nothing more.
That should piss everybody off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
" they won the election over that issue"
" ultimately if there is no consequence for those who've done it in the past then that precedence now is it's okay to use personal e-mail for Government business"
.... until the other party is in (whatever position) - then watch out, because Oh - boy, those emails !!!!!11111111
hypocrisy knows no bounds and the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem - they will never do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Need to Get the Facts Right
This is sloppy reporting:
Actually, Trump criticized Hillary's handling of classified information (Jul. 6, 2016):
As I have written before, the issue with Hillary's email server was that it contained classified information on a server in her basement. Even PolitiFact knows that:
I'm not excusing Kushner any more than Mike Pence from using a personal email account for concealing Indiana's classified recipe for Hoosier pie. But we need to get the facts right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Need to Get the Facts Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Need to Get the Facts Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Need to Get the Facts Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We Need to Get the Facts Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An obvious violation, but to what degree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knew this was coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One difference
This means that while both they and Hillary are guilty of FOIA violations. It would be much harder to prove Trump officials were using private emails for CLASSIFIED communications. Hillary, having no email other than her private one, was undoubtedly using it for classified emails. Trump officials are likely using the internal system and email accounts for that.
Point being, Hillary broke two sets of laws, Trumps people are only breaking one set. Nitpicking I know. But Hillary's failure to setup even the cover of plausibility for handling confidential email correctly, shows how utterly incompetent she was at doing any sort of government job. She was a hack who rode on coattails and favors to every position she occupied where she always did an awful job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One difference
You are confusing "no email" with "no unclassified email" address. Each level of classification has a different username, they can generally only be accessed from within a SCIF, and some of them can only be accessed with a 2FA token. The vast majority of the time, it is not possible to send classified material off the classified networks. She absolutely had at least one email address for classified information, probably one for Secret and another for Top Secret. They set up a SCIF in her house for this purpose!
Spillage and leakage occurs pretty regularly, though. People accidentally walk out of the SCIF with a folder they were supposed to put in the safe, or walk in with their cell phone, Kindle, or Furby. These are security violations that should be handled by the lowest-level site security officer and don't often result in firing. Accidental spillage, at worst, results in a written statement that you violated the security policies, and can affect your ability to get a clearance renewed.
She apparently wasn't listening to the mandatory training about how to handle government information in general (classified, or FOIA-able), and rather than fix the poor IT issues within the State Department, she set up her own shadow IT (and let everyone else deal with the DoS systems as they were). These speak more to me about her performance as a leader and administrator than the spillage.
The investigation was fully justified, as was the end result of it. An unintentional incident of spillage is generally documented and forgotten (Hey, don't do that again) unless there is a repeated pattern or clear indications of intent to violate the law. All of this is pretty subtle - she was wrong, but not *that* wrong, so everyone sees what they want to see in it. I was angry when she was cleared, but upon further reflection, it makes sense based on what I saw in the SCIFs I worked in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm increasingly interested in what's in Donald's "college records and applications," and "passport applications and records," given how sure he was he'd find something amiss in Obama's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And a lot of people are bring up the problem of classified information showing up in these accounts, but just remember that no classified information should ever be shared through email addresses that are accessible through non-secure networks, including whitehouse.gov accounts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell that to the GOP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just a gigantic distraction
Given the significance of Hillary's Emails (tm), you should not let your attention be distracted by this present issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is just a gigantic distraction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She stated, in the link you cited, that one of the reasons she became a federal employee (a month later) was so that she would have access to "Government-issued communications". That would indicate to me she didn't actually have access to Government email at the time she wrote the email in question.
If your sources are good; Then I would conclude she's doing a fairly good job of trying to stick to the spirit of the law. Was that the point of the story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
""Fewer than a hundred emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account," Kushner's lawyer Abbe Lowell said Sunday. "These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal, rather than his White House, address. All non-personal emails were forwarded to his official address and all have been preserved in any event.""
I'm not understanding how this compares to setting up a private email server and sending emails with classified info on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tim is a die-hard liberal, and isn't able to be objective about anything to do with Trump.
This should win funniest comment. As someone who's known Tim for a long time now, I don't think anyone could legitimately describe him as "liberal" let-alone a "die-hard liberal." Have you read what he writes or are you just assuming because of this one article he must be a liberal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is speculation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, I see. It's okay to store government secrets on, say, Google's private server, but bad to store them on my personal private server. <eye-roll />
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is the wrong perspective. Let me emphasize the relevant points...
The major point of contention in the Clinton scandal was that she made top secret communications that were NOT ON A SECURE GOVERNMENT SERVER. But if any top secret communications were made by the Trump team via, say, Gmail, then those were NOT ON A SECURE GOVERNMENT SERVER.
The other concern for government communications is grouped under the category of "Sunshine provisions"; the public right to review what its government is doing in its name. In the case of Clinton, those communications are out of the public eye because they were NOT ON A GOVERNMENT SERVER. Likewise, the Trump team emails are out of the public eye, because they are NOT ON A GOVERNMENT SERVER.
So, you see, there are two main public policy reasons why private email should not be used by government officials. From the public policy perspective, whether that is on Clinton's private server--or on Google's/AOL's/Facebook's/etc.--is actually completely irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The same goes for AOL, the mail server of choice for Mike Pence and Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's secure government communications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, no private servers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This just goes to show what a non issue it was in his mind, and in the minds of everyone in that family.
It further shows how little integrity or honesty he or his family have, that they would make a major campaign issue out of the Clinton emails and then ignore any concerns of the implications of impropriety their own actions might relay.
It underlines how much bullshit the Trump campaign was based on and how little respect this unprofessional clown has for the people of this nation.
So, while this might not be on the same level, nor the first time this has happened... Screw him, throw it back at him, he'd do nothing less himself.
Crooked Ivanka... Crooked Jared... Crooked Donald!!
Crooked Ivanka... Crooked Jared... Crooked Donald!!
Crooked Ivanka... Crooked Jared... Crooked Donald!!
Lock them up... Lock them up... Lock them up!
Lock them up... Lock them up... Lock them up!
Lock them up... Lock them up... Lock them up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They did, you can find them in the evidence locker right between Monica's dress, and Hillary's server...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's different in that these two dipshits should have known better, given all the blathering their orange shit-stain of a father did about emails for 9 months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course
It was never done before them - yeah right, and I've got this bridge for sale, perhaps you would be interested.
"Liberals totally excused her actions"
Excused what, when and how
" Republicans follow suit"
Goose / Gander ... blah blah
Vindictive bullshit seems to fit you well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course
Liberals totally excused her actions so why wouldn't Republicans follow suit?
Actually, since there's a republican in control of the justice department, the republicans are totally excusing her actions. Why no investigation, indictment, prosecution?
I thought trump was going to lock her up? What happened to that? Must be coming after Mexico sends over the check for the wall, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacked?
Just thinking about that outcome makes me giggle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we don't expect them on the level we've seen
The mistake is assuming that there is a legitimate political dialog going on in this country at all. Yes they say different things. That is how the two man con works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The NSA collects it all, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]