But Her Emails: Ivanka Trump Also Used A Private Email Account For Official Government Business
from the SAD! dept
As we near the midpoint of Trump's presidential term, White House renovations continue, including the erection of a glass-walled enclosure for stone-throwing.
Ivanka Trump sent hundreds of emails last year to White House aides, Cabinet officials and her assistants using a personal account, many of them in violation of federal records rules, according to people familiar with a White House examination of her correspondence.
White House ethics officials learned of Trump’s repeated use of personal email when reviewing emails gathered last fall by five Cabinet agencies to respond to a public records lawsuit. That review revealed that throughout much of 2017, she often discussed or relayed official White House business using a private email account with a domain that she shares with her husband, Jared Kushner.
According to White House counsel, this was all a misunderstanding. Apparently, Ivanka Trump wasn't aware of the rules governing the discussion of official government business on private channels. This would only be excusable if her father hadn'tspent a great deal of time calling for Hillary Clinton to be locked up for the same behavior.
Given the (still!) ongoing excoriation of Clinton by Donald Trump, you'd think his administration would have tried to lead by example and make sure everyone was on official channels from day one. Instead, his admin team did the same thing Clinton did, minus the setup of a private server.
And there are a few differences between Ivanka Trump's personal email use and Clinton's. Some commenters will make this part of the post redundant as they seek to find something hypocritical in Techdirt's coverage of this story or simply demand it be known Ivanka's actions were far more acceptable than Clinton's. Nevertheless, here we go:
It appears no classified information made its way into her personal email account. She also did not set up her own server to handle all official communications. She is also now apparently using her official White House email account after being informed of the rules -- a corrective effort Hillary Clinton never made.
Since I'm sure this short post pointing out the hypocrisy of the Trump Administration will be viewed as biased, here's Techdirt's history on government officials and private email accounts:
Techdirt criticizes Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server
Techdirt criticizes James Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation
Techdirt criticizes Jame Comey's reopening of the Clinton email investigation
Techdirt criticizes Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's use of a private email account
Techdirt criticizes New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's use of a private email account
Techdirt criticizes former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's use of a private email account
Techdirt criticizes VP Mike Pence's use of a private email account
If a government official has used private email accounts for official business, Techdirt has criticized them. Ivanka Trump doesn't get a pass and neither does anyone on the other side of the gaping political divide. She may not have known the specifics governing official communications but the Trump Administration has no one to blame but itself for the black eye it's now sporting.
HER EMAILS was a major plank in Trump's election platform. His administration team could have prevented this but was too busy keeping their own communications off the record to straighten out Ivanka Trump.
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: email, hillary clinton, ivanka trump
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Would you bet your life that grade schoolers know this stuff? There are two high school students in my living room who've been educated within the public school system, and I can bet you they don't understand the electoral college.
And I bet this forum would argue vehemently on why we have it and whether it is fair or necessary.
More importantly, the EC has served those in power, and so we haven't been able to change it. Nor have we been able to change voting systems to majority counts (which would do a bunch to break up Texas and California), nor have we been able to change FPTP or add in campaign financing reform.
US democracy is not fractured, it's shattered and the average American believes it mostly works or is at worst a little broken. No. It's failing the public, which is one of the reasons why corporate lobbying is one of the best returns on investment as much as $22 to the dollar spent. The US spends $100 billion a year on unconditional corporate subsidies. Just free money to companies.
The system is borked, and no, grade schoolers don't know that. And no, we can't change it within the system, except maybe over centuries, by which time the US will be bankrupt and the human species will have polluted ourselves to death.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, lock them up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, lock them up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, lock them up!
Did Ivanka use this server for state secrets?
That's why we need to investigate, investigate more, make her answer questions for 11 hours straight, then investigate again.
While we're doing that, I'd like her to hear on a regular basis everyone chanting "lock her up."
Just for consistency's sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, lock them up!
This false equivalency is humorous, at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, lock them up!
Is she sec state?
No, she's Senior Advisor the the President. Is that somehow less important than Secretary of State?
Is she deleting emails and then scrubbing the systems to hide her malfeasance?
That's what the investigations will find out.
This false equivalency is humorous, at best.
Don't be upset. You should be used to something a Trump does as being an embarrassment. I just want consistency. And emails are important shit, as you guys have pointed out for the last 3 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, lock them up!
No, she's a senior advisor to the President who holds a security clearance and has access to sensitive information.
Well, we can't know that until there's an investigation, can we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, lock them up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, lock them up!
This means that these emails were sent to an unclassified server from unclassified servers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, lock them up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, lock them up!
The e-mail sent by the blonde has a stamp on it!
Lock. Her. Up.
And yes, Ivanka, that means YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, lock them up!
No, but given the nepotism and general incompetence of this administration she probably has at least as much access to files as Clinton did.
"Is she deleting emails and then scrubbing the systems to hide her malfeasance?"
No, the grifters involved at least try to be slightly competent in that regard. She's handed over control to a 3rd party so that other people can do that for her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt criticizes Blue Boy
for the storm to start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt criticizes Blue Boy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Election is over, deal with it.
The way people are reacting, if newspapers/CIA published proof that it was Trump who suggested to bin Salman that Khashoggi was going to be bad business while alive, they'd be chanting "crooked Hillary".
Trump and his family are above criticism. And to some degree, I'm inclined to say "thanks, Obama". Because Obama did a lot to raise the level of presidential privilege and public apathy towards it. "Hope and Change". What a riot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
Winning the election does not afford the winning party the right or privilege to be free of criticism. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
Is this the point where it's mentioned that over 3 million people expressly did not vote for that, but the system discounted their votes and they got him anyway?
I understand the "they got what they voted for" mentality, but it's hard to accept when a majority did not, even if those were the rules the system was set up to play by. Whichever way you want to swing it, a majority of voters did not get what they voted for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
This wasn't some hidden fact or some sneaky 'gotcha', if you are voting and don't know how the electoral system works that's your own fault and there is no one else to blame.
If you want to change the electoral system? Fine, good, I think it should be abolished too. But whining about how she won the popular vote and still lost should be met with "Well yea, because the popular vote doesn't matter, did you even pay attention in school?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
I'm not saying that he didn't win, nor that he shouldn't under the system in place. I'm saying that at least 3 million people did not get what they voted for. That you have a system that can outright ignore the wishes of a majority because too many of them were voting in particular states is a different matter.
Did he win? Yes. Did a majority of Americans vote for an obviously compromised con man and thus deserve everything that's happening to them as a result? No.
I'm not American and thus have no direct stake in this. It's just that I'm opposed to people being told they deserved something because they asked for it, when most of them clearly didn't.
"if you are voting and don't know how the electoral system works that's your own fault and there is no one else to blame."
...and if they do know exactly how it works, but couldn't do anything about it because they lived, studied and/or worked in the "wrong state" and couldn't individually reform the entire federal voting system in time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
Thank you, Paul.
To David and the AC: I expressly did not vote for Trump. I expressly did not want Trump. I therefore will ignore any argument that is "you got what you voted for" because I did not get what I voted for. I got what I did not vote for.
Trump's campaign promises are things I did not want. Him actually trying to complete those are things I do not want. I will criticize everything Trump does that runs counter to what I did not want, and telling me and everybody else that "you got what you voted for" is an argument designed to discourage people from trying or doing or thinking.
Let's break this down further. If you tell someone "you got what you voted for" in response to them criticizing the administration for something it has done, you are telling them to sit down and shut up. You are attempting to silence their voice. That makes you, in my book, an asshole.
Second, if someone is criticizing the administration, there is one of two histories to that person: A) They didn't vote for this administration, in which case "you got what you voted for" is false, because they didn't vote for this administration. B) They did vote for this administration, and are in some fashion changing their minds, or were misled before they voted, or something. In which case, while "You got what you voted for" is accurate, but people are allowed to change their minds. And if someone makes a mistake, they should still be allowed to speak out.
"You got what you voted for" is only useful if you actually know the person voted for this hogwash, and you are using it to assist them in realizing they need to do what they can (even if that's just vote differently in 2020) to correct what they are coming to realize is an error.
So, these posts? You're saying nothing useful. You're just telling people to sit down and shut up based on a false assumption that this is what everybody wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
That's a false dichotomy. Other possibilities include:
- They weren't old enough to vote at the time of the last election, or were unable to vote for some other reason
- They were disenfranchised in some way (i.e. could vote, wanted to but were stopped from doing so)
- They chose not to vote, but regret that decision
- They chose not to vote, but understand their vote would not have made a difference anyway (e.g. voting where those 3+ million people who were ignored were also voting)
Those who chose not to vote do deserve some criticism if they don't like the result, but as with anything politics related if you think you can break it down into 2 easy choices, you're missing a lot of things.
You're correct in that only unapologetic, unrepentant Trump voters deserve the "you got what you wanted" . Whichever way you look at it, that group would be a minority of Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Election is over, this is how we deal with it.
For those that chose not to vote and are now complaining - I agree with you. They should have voted. But their complaints are not invalid, either - and anyone telling them to sit down and shut up because they didn't vote is doing nobody any favors. Instead, we should say "you didn't vote, this is what happens - so in 2020, you'll be participating, right?"
For those not Paul, to expand on things a bit more: I have a friend who is here on a Green Card. He unfortunately is not able to vote, since he's not a citizen. Anyone telling him to shut up and stop complaining can put a sock in it, too - he may not be a citizen, but he lives and works in this country. He may not be able to vote, but he's just as entitled to voicing his thoughts as anyone else. "You got what you voted for" doesn't apply to him, and those who use it in a general sense are jerkasses in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you bet your life that grade schoolers know this stuff? There are two high school students in my living room who've been educated within the public school system, and I can bet you they don't understand the electoral college.
And I bet this forum would argue vehemently on why we have it and whether it is fair or necessary.
More importantly, the EC has served those in power, and so we haven't been able to change it. Nor have we been able to change voting systems to majority counts (which would do a bunch to break up Texas and California), nor have we been able to change FPTP or add in campaign financing reform.
US democracy is not fractured, it's shattered and the average American believes it mostly works or is at worst a little broken. No. It's failing the public, which is one of the reasons why corporate lobbying is one of the best returns on investment as much as $22 to the dollar spent. The US spends $100 billion a year on unconditional corporate subsidies. Just free money to companies.
The system is borked, and no, grade schoolers don't know that. And no, we can't change it within the system, except maybe over centuries, by which time the US will be bankrupt and the human species will have polluted ourselves to death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not? I came out of (public) high school with a solid understanding of it, and it wasn't all that long ago. (I don't have kids of my own yet, for example.)
Please look up the concept of Chesterton's Fence before saying such things.
These, I'll grant, are actual legitimate problems, but what do they have to do with the Electoral College? (Hint: nada.)
o_0 Do you own stock in a tinfoil company or something? Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chesterton's Fence
Mason Wheeler I assume by referring to Chesterton's Fence you meant to imply that our winner-take-all system of counting votes by district serves some other useful purpose than simplifying the math for a pre-computer era, obfuscating errors and facilitating gerrymandering.
It serves those three functions, and I still think it's a fence that should be cleared.
Feel free to attempt to sway me otherwise, if you think our district system serves and additional function we cannot live without. If you really think I'm ignorant, proceed to inform me.
Otherwise, I'll just assume you like the current system because it helps to elect the party to which you hold (irrational) loyalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chesterton's Fence
I meant to imply nothing at all about counting votes by district. What you were talking about was our presumed failure to replace the Electoral College with a majority vote system.
> Otherwise, I'll just assume you like the current system because it helps to elect the party to which you hold (irrational) loyalty.
And which one would that be? I'm curious as to where you think my (irrational) affiliations lie based on things I've said in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I meant to imply nothing at all"
Then I can safely assume you were saying nothing at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tl;dr
"Build the wall" and "lock her up" are two off the top of my head. And remember how he was going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something "so much better"?
I think you'll also note, if you go into any stores about now, that they still have signage saying "happy holidays" and "season's greetings"; he has not forced anybody to say "Merry Christmas".
He hasn't brought coal jobs back, and his tariffs have not resulted in the promised economic prosperity to the American steel sector; indeed, he's had to introduce subsidies to offset the losses his policies have caused to American farmers.
Those are, again, a few examples off the top of my head. For a more thorough analysis, check PolitiFact's Trump Campaign Promise Scorecard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Election is over, deal with it.
Like, say, for Democrats to take control of the House?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Election is over, deal with it.
Really? When the alternative was Hillary Clinton, of all people?
Literally the only good reason to vote for either one of them was to keep the other one out of the White House. I know the term "the lesser of two evils" has been overused in politics to the point of cliche, but in this particular case that's exactly what the 2016 election was about, and as bad as it was, I do honestly believe we ended up with the (slightly!) lesser evil this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Election is over, deal with it.
In any event, that's water under the bridge - can't go back and change the outcome of 2016.
On the flip side, no reason to let Trump and his people do things without being called on them. Terrible people doing terrible things should be called out, regardless of whether we can stop it.
And yes. I'd apply the same rubric to Clinton. Or even a third party candidate, if they'd won by some miracle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Election is over, deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOP...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Official of what?
There was also a comment in that other article about Hillary's use of private email while she was Secretary of State. Well, the Secretary of State is in fact a government official, and has different rules than an unelected and/or unappointed person.
So far as firing Ivanka, well I think they still call that divorce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Official of what?
Ivanka is a senior adviser in the white house, an actual employee of the government. Her emails discuss sensitive information and bonafide government business. The report makes that clear.
Please do research before commenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Official of what?
I'd trade that for people doing research before voting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Official of what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Official of what?
Whoops!"
Pretty bold stuff there. Glad you don't work for me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Official of what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Official of what?
Upon becoming First Lady, Hillary Clinton was (or pretended to be) her husband's chief policy wonk, who went to work crafting the failed ClintonCare socialized medicine plan. She was also reportedly instrumental in convincing her husband to carpet-bomb the tiny country of Serbia because that country's president was a nationalist who said unkind things about Muslims (particularly those who took up arms against the government). And it was never hard to imagine that if Hillary got elected president, the First Gentleman would likely have become the most powerful presidential spouse in history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Official of what?
...Ivanka is Donald Trump's daughter, AAC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Official of what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Depends on who you talk to. One of the notes made by the DOJ was that the information was not classified when she received it, and classified information was supposed to be sent elsewhere. Its the one thing I didn't have a problem with.
As well, for many who are upset about this, the violations of the PRA are an issue in and of themselves. It might be what made it problematic for you, but its not what made it problematic for me. And I don't think I remember Donald Trump in the middle of those lock her up chants reminding his base about how it was perfectly fine to violate the PRA as long as you don't share information that might be classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ivanka Trump e-mail
If she does hot have a government position she should not be able to conduct government business.
If these propositions are true and they should be then it is impossible for her to send official government level e-mail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ivanka Trump e-mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ivanka Trump e-mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ivanka Trump e-mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ivanka Trump e-mail
Ivanka Trump is employed by the Trump White House. She IS an employee/official no matter how ludacris and dubious that might be...
You really didn't know that?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, we've seen how badly the Federal government's official email handling has been, with massive black holes throughout both the Bush and Obama eras, such as those involving former IRS Commissioner (and 5th Amendment pleading) Lois Lerner, who the D.O.J. under Jeff Sessions decided not to prosecute, but now that he's gone, maybe Lois Lerner will become a target.
[ 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:
Donald T had a similar missed opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Donald T had a similar missed opportunity.
[ 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:
I could be wrong, but I can't recall TheDonald ever making a specific promise that no one in his administration would ever use a private email server
Nope, I never heard him promise that.
And why would he? It's not like he is/was concerned about private email servers or the ramifications when government officials use them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's really sad...
None of the higher ups did. The problem is obviously systematic, regardless of to whom you are currently pointing the blame finger. Be that the political system, technical system, the hoop-jumping system, or the ass kissing system in Washington.
No one in Washington cares. They haven't for a long time. They have been fighting FOIA since it was passed. Although in Mrs. Trump's case, it's just as likely to be idiocy, as anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So far Ivanka's use doesn't seem nearly as bad as HRC's turned out to be but it does need to be looked at to make sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd say the odds the transition team told her not to do it and she did it anyway are pretty high. Her father's not exactly known for following advice or counsel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People who write articles about government official's "private email servers" need to make the very big distinction between the use of email SERVERS THAT THEY CONTROL from the much lesser misdeed of using private SERVERS THAT THEY DO NOT CONTROL.
By comparison, the Bush regime's email was much wider scandal than Hillary Clinton's or really the entire Obama staff, with dozens of Bush officials using the Republican National Committee's private email server. Obama should have made a bigger deal out of that scandal when he campaigned, and like so many Bush-era crimes, prosecuted everyone involved as well as pushed for much tougher penalties against such shenanigans in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who really needs to be criticized is the Transition Team put in place after the election.
Of course! How could it be poor, simple-minded Ivanka's fault?
I'm sure she never heard a damn thing about private email servers and how using them is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not The Same Thing
The practice Ivanka undertook was exactly what Colin Powell and others have described doing with non-sensitive, communications.
If the House Democrats (as reported) really do plan to investigate this next year, they will only serve to draw renewed scrutiny of Hillary's email server and it's destruction. So go for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not The Same Thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not The Same Thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not The Same Thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not The Same Thing
If the House Democrats (as reported) really do plan to investigate this next year, they will only serve to draw renewed scrutiny of Hillary's email server and it's destruction.
I'm fine with that. We can investigate Ivanka for 2 years, make her sit up straight and answer questions for 11 hours, and then investigate again! And when we're done investigating, we can say we're not satisfied and start the process all over again. Let's make sure we get to the bottom of this!
And if that means renewed scrutiny for Hillary, I say "go for it!" Republicans have been trying to prosecute the Clintons for what's been north or 25 years, and after all this time - after all of the "lock her up" bullshit that trumptards to this day are still chanting trained chimps, she's still not locked up.
Either republicans are really, really, really shitty investigators, or the Clintons are just to damn smart for you.
So go ahead. Renew your scrutiny and all, and let's do some investigating!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not The Same Thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The multiple concerns about official business on private servers
There's two issues here:
One, that information that should be public record (or at least historical record), and emails on non-official servers fail to become that.
Two, data harmful to national security may accessible to spies for being on an inadequately secured server. Most of the concern by the FBI regarding the Clinton server was about this latter point.
The next step is to find out what can be gleaned off Ivanka's private server that puts the United States under threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The multiple concerns about official business on private servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Ivanka Trump a government official?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Her position is Senior Advisor to the President , an official (unpaid) government position part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not really a difference, it was the same for Hillary. You have to wait a while to see if something is classified retroactively (which of course neither of them have any control over) to see if there is any difference there.
[ 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 ]
That's actually news to me.
I didn't know the classified material on Clinton's email server had been classified after the fact.
That smacks of our state's overclassification problem, which suggests that all cases of classification that aren't current operational intel are meant to cover up stuff from the public, rather than from enemy spies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's actually news to me.
There is also some minor controversy because apparently even a newspaper article can be considered classified information, and something can be both common knowledge and classified information at the same time :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh come on...
Can't we have a little hope that we've passed the half way mark?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh come on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh come on...
Unlikely. Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama all got a second term despite each of them having clearly demonstrated by that point that they were blatantly unfit for one. Why should Trump be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh come on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh come on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh come on...
While the president's role in the performance of the economy is often grossly overstated, your suggestion that the recovery following the housing crisis was driven by simple demographics is similarly reductive.
Per Morgan Stanley, peak spending age is 35-54. The people aging into this demographic during the Obama Administration were Gen Xers -- who are smaller in number than both the older (Boomer) and younger (Millennial) generation. So right off the bat, your claim of a sudden surge in people in the peak spending demographic is suspect.
Several federal-level policy decisions (TARP under Bush and a Democratic Congress, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act under Obama and a Democratic Congress, interest rate decisions made by Federal Reserve Chairs under both presidents) contributed to the economic recovery -- though it's important to note that economic gains have disproportionately gone to the already-wealthy. Lower- and middle-class people are likelier to be employed now, but they're not seeing the income growth that previous generations did. (This, too, has long-term ramifications for the economy; now that Millennials are beginning to age into that 35-54 demographic, they're not going to spend as much as previous generations because they don't have as much to spend.)
Any way you slice it, it's ridiculous for Trump to claim credit for the current economy, as the trend lines are the same as they were before he took office. Wherever you place the credit for the economy in 2016 (and whatever role Obama may have had, he certainly wasn't solely responsible), it doesn't belong with Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh come on...
We had that boom during the late 90s and throughout most of the 2000s. But there's a second wave of the same Boomer generation to it that Morgan Stanley's site didn't mention: while the average person's peak spending age is around 50, for the wealthiest it's closer to 60. And with so much of the total wealth being concentrated in the hands of the top 1%--the majority of whom are Baby Boomers--the expected result is... well... exactly what we've been seeing for the last few years. But now as that peak begins to pass, things are looking a bit rocky ahead.
I never said it did. In fact I said pretty much the exact opposite: that no President deserves the credit because it's the result of demographic forces that were set into motion decades before any of them even went into politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh come on...
...the boom caused by a larger generation aging out of the peak spending age and a smaller generation aging into it? WTF are you talking about?
No, it isn't. Because people who have more money don't spend more money. Poor and middle-class people buy essentials; the top 1% invest their money. Even the most conspicuous spenders only put a fraction of their money into buying goods and services -- or they don't remain in the top 1% for long.
The top 1% drives the performance of the stock market, the housing market, and other investment industries that act as leading indicators. Those all contribute to the economy, but they're not part of the peak buying phenomenon you're describing, and they're not a complete picture.
Yes. And I said that's just as reductive as saying it's all the president.
The financial collapse of '07-'08 was driven by the mortgage crisis. This was driven by deregulation that occurred during the Clinton and Bush Administrations (each with a Republican Congress), and by predatory lending by the banking industry (facilitated by a lack of oversight during the Bush Administration). To suggest that the only factor that drives economic trends is demographics is patently absurd.
The President does not drive the economy singlehandedly. Neither is he inconsequential. The same goes for demographic changes; the same goes for interest rates; the same goes for any single factor that contributes to the economy. Crediting or blaming any single factor for an economic trend is a gross oversimplification of a complex system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh come on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh come on...
By that standard, the midpoint of his term will be on January 20th, 2019. We still have just under two months to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punishment
Clinton would likely have faced jail time if she was just a rank and file person who did what she did which, as a retired government employee, really honks me when I see the high and mighty not held to the same standards.
The Trumps have zero excuse as has been pointed out since the kerfuflle they made over Clinton could hardly have gone right on by her dainty little head.
The Trumps as an represent the worst aspects of "me firstism" where the common rules and laws are there for the little people and not for them.
But what can you expect from a man who says he is too busy to visit the troops but has time for yet another golfing vacation this weekend?
I'd swear the man said *he* would be too busy being President to golf when he made endless jibes at Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punishment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Punishment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but her emails...
Libya has slavery again now thanks to you guys and your stupid leadership. For all that Trump does, doubt he's ever going to do that. The right leader was picked between the two, though our system does rather suck when it comes to picking them.
Oh, and while I agree that Ivanka should not be using private email for government business, it's on a 3rd party server, so she can't delete subpoenaed emails like Hillary did without there being a record of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but her emails...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]