# Private emails , Ivanka version
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [November 20, 2018, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843 "2018-11-20T11:24:13Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Wolf333](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolf333)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/41 "2018-11-23T19:21:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> So, if we apply the same standard, both Ivanka and Hillary should be locked up? And all the stuff about how Hillary didn’t do anything criminal was bullshit?
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
We know she didn’t do anything worth prosecuting because of the investigations. Do you think we should investigate Ivanka?
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/42 "2018-11-23T21:06:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> So, if we apply the same standard, both Ivanka and Hillary should be locked up? And all the stuff about how Hillary didn’t do anything criminal was bullshit?
As I said before, this is more of an issue of how amazingly dumb one has to be to be part of a political campaign which featured “doing X should land you in jail” and then going out and doing X.
Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Hillary Clinton did not go to jail for doing X. Ivanka shouldn’t, either.
So are you seriously defending Ivanka here? Did she act reasonably, with good judgment?
---
### Author:  [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/43 "2018-11-23T21:17:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> So, if we apply the same standard, both Ivanka and Hillary should be locked up? And all the stuff about how Hillary didn’t do anything criminal was bullshit?
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
I’m not sure whether you are being wooshed, or intentionally pretending to misunderstand.
Do you actually believe that all of the people here chanting “lock her up” are actually in favor of her being locked up? They are obviously just playing off the hypocrisy of the right. Or at most claiming that if Hillary should be locked up Ivanka should be locked up as well.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/44 "2018-11-23T21:22:04Z")
The difference is, when Clinton used a private e-mail server, that was the standard established policy. One might perhaps argue that it was a bad policy, but it was the policy. On the other hand, by the time Ivanka Trump was doing it, the policy had been very clearly and unambiguously changed.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/45 "2018-11-23T22:11:15Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> The difference is, when Clinton used a private e-mail server, that was the standard established policy. One might perhaps argue that it was a bad policy, but it was the policy. On the other hand, by the time Ivanka Trump was doing it, the policy had been very clearly and unambiguously changed.
That isn’t true at all. There was no established policy that the Secretary of State should use private email while all subordinates don’t. Like, come on. Get real.
There was a practice of Powell and Rice doing it, but it was not policy. In fact, it was AGAINST policy since 2005.
[https://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804](https://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804)
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/46 "2018-11-23T23:01:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> So are you seriously defending Ivanka here? Did she act reasonably, with good judgment?
Did Hillary act reasonably, with good judgment? It would appear that from your logic above that she did not. So why are you defending Hillary?
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/47 "2018-11-23T23:11:02Z")
And round and round we go!
---
### Author:  [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/48 "2018-11-23T23:37:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> That isn’t true at all. There was no established policy that the Secretary of State should use private email while all subordinates don’t. Like, come on. Get real.
>
> There was a practice of Powell and Rice doing it, but it was not policy. In fact, it was AGAINST policy since 2005.
>
> [https://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804](https://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804)
The big difference is that Hillary had plausible deniability, or at least could claim ignorance. When you are the daughter of a man who ran as president with that former event as a _primary campaign theme_ you have a bit of a problem.
What Clinton did was bad, but what Ivanka did is edging on premeditation.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/49 "2018-11-23T23:44:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Did Hillary act reasonably, with good judgment? It would appear that from your logic above that she did not. So why are you defending Hillary?
The question isn’t how much I’ve criticized Clinton; the question is whether you will criticize Ivanka.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/50 "2018-11-23T23:45:47Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#):
>
> The big difference is that Hillary had plausible deniability, or at least could claim ignorance.
Her deniability wasn’t plausiblen in the least. As for ignorance, it appears her staff were too intimidated to suggest following State Department policy.
---
### Author:  [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2018, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/51 "2018-11-23T23:55:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> Her deniability wasn’t plausiblen in the least. As for ignorance, it appears her staff were too intimidated to suggest following State Department policy.
When was the last time you read your IT policy? When was the last time you changed your passwords? Have you ever installed a program on your work computer without permission even if that was via a browser plugin?
Cheek v. United States related to tax laws will show how “willfull” actions are generally considered to be more egregious.
The is no way Ivanka can make a claim that this wasn’t a _willful_ violation. Depending on the facts it may even rise to the level of criminal recklessness.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2018, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/52 "2018-11-24T02:02:30Z")
How is “every Secretary of State since the widespread adoption of e-mail did this” not an established policy? Who do you think sets policy binding on the Secretary of State?
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2018, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/53 "2018-11-24T02:39:30Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> How is “every Secretary of State since the widespread adoption of e-mail did this” not an established policy? Who do you think sets policy binding on the Secretary of State?
If it is policy, show me where it is written down. I’ve cited how the policy was written to be the opposite.
---
### Author:  [@Steven\_Maven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steven_Maven)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2018, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/54 "2018-11-24T03:23:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> …since Ivanka still has problems with naming the **four** branches of government.
Nobody else mentioned this subtle joke, but I liked it.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2018, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/55 "2018-11-24T13:58:01Z")
**Ravenman** , that’s a policy for State Department employees, engaged in normal, day-to-day operations. The Secretary of State is neither.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2018, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/56 "2018-11-24T16:13:54Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> **Ravenman** , that’s a policy for State Department employees, engaged in normal, day-to-day operations. The Secretary of State is neither.
First of all, I laugh at your rediculous “point” here.
Second, cite the policy. You said there was one, so cough it up.
Third, tell me why the State Department IG reported this: “According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.”
---
### Author:  [@BenedictusXIV](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BenedictusXIV)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2018, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/57 "2018-11-24T16:21:13Z")
Somehow I don’t see a room full of democrats chanting “Lock her up, lock her up!”. Outrage is a republican prerogative and strictly reserved against the opposition. The entire Trump administration and their families can screw their interns, openly spread state secrets over private mail servers, hide their birth certificates and nobody on either side of the political spectrum will give a hoot. I’m no sociologist nor do I have knowledge of mass psychology, but to me these Trumpeteers seem united mostly in fear and anger. It appears as if they are comforted by having a common target and guild or innocence is not that important, nor is the nature of the “crime”. Since there is no such effect on the democratic side, nobody really cares what Ivanka does with her email and there is no point in trying to make it a big deal. Be honest, are you outraged or merely thrilled about the gotcha?
---
### Author:  [@Kimera757](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimera757)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2018, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/58 "2018-11-24T18:10:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> It was about her using a private e-mail server. Supposedly the server was “unsecured”, except that in actual fact it turned out to be more secure than the official governmental one she was supposed to be using.
I hadn’t heard that last part.
> [@BenedictusXIV](#):
>
> Outrage is a republican prerogative and strictly reserved against the opposition.
Democrats practice outrage too. They’re just more sensible about it than Republicans, and they won’t be screaming “lock her up”, except one or two extremists. Still, there will be more outrage over than than “normal” because:
1. Clinton was attacked over her emails, making this deliciously ironic.
2. Ivanka’s last name is Trump.
---
### Author:  [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/59 "2018-11-24T18:22:32Z")
> [@BenedictusXIV](#):
>
> Be honest, are you outraged or merely thrilled about the gotcha?
While I get some degree of schadenfraude from the gotcha, I’m mainly outraged (yet not the eensy-weensiest bit surprised) that Republicans will do whatever they can to silently handwaive this away. Somewhat torn between sticking with the democratic side’s way of seeing this as a nothingburger, and just simply going after her, as is happening with the lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation. (Which admittedly is a lawsuit and not an investigation - I’m just focusing on the general idea of going after them)
This New Yorker [article goes further into the Democratic party’s differing views on investigations/lawsuits.](https://www.newyorker.com/news/swamp-chronicles/the-investigations-trump-will-face-now-that-democrats-control-the-house)
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2018, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843/60 "2018-11-24T18:31:16Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Quoth **Ravenman** :
>
> Second, cite the policy. You said there was one, so cough it up.
The only policy that’s relevant to a Secretary of State is the precedents set by previous Secretaries of State, and whatever directives the President gives. So the policy you’re asking me for is: Powell and Rice both did the same thing. Unless you can cite President Obama telling her not to use a private server, that’s the _only_ relevant policy.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/private-emails-ivanka-version/824843.md?page=4)