Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp?
Quote | Reply
http://time.com/...vate-email-whatsapp/

Hmm... this sounds Familiar. Should he be locked up?

Quote:

House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings sent a letter to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone informing him that he had learned from Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, that Jared Kushner has used WhatsApp for official work, including with some foreign officials.
According to Cummings, Lowell “could not answer” questions about whether those communications included classified information, which would be a serious breach of security protocol.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Last edited by: BLeP: Mar 22, 19 8:37
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatApp? [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It was used for adoptions of poor Russian children.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatApp? [FishyJoe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am sure there is nothing to see here.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatApp? [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Did he wipe his phone down with a bleach wipe afterward?? You know, to cover his tracks.

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatApp? [mck414] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am sure that this is all a big nothingburger. Same with that other dude who was discussing selling nuke technology to the Saudis via AOL.

AOL? Seriously? Wonder if he still has a MySpace page?

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatApp? [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm sure it will all be cleared up once he revises his security clearance application for the 17th time.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatApp? [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
He should've used SnapChat

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatApp? [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
I am sure that this is all a big nothingburger. Same with that other dude who was discussing selling nuke technology to the Saudis via AOL.

AOL? Seriously? Wonder if he still has a MySpace page?

What non-secure media is more secure than AOL? Only us still living relics, who vaguely remember Al Gore's invention, know how to access AOL.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Getting upset when someone uses personal e-mail for classified information is so 2016.

Elections have consequences and one of those is that selective outrage changes teams.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [Sanuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.

Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.

Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...

So using Whatsapp is ok?

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.
Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...

This x 10000
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dude, that's like saying a clip is a magazine.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [efernand] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
efernand wrote:
Quote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.
Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...


This x 10000

Exactly this is much worse than Clinton. Clinton at least had control of her server, here who know who at facebook had access to this. Could be hundreds.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [efernand] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
efernand wrote:
Quote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.
Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...

This x 10000

So using whatsapp is ok?

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
efernand wrote:
Quote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.
Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...


This x 10000


Exactly this is much worse than Clinton. Clinton at least had control of her server, here who know who at facebook had access to this. Could be hundreds.

No worries, FB is a secured platform...

https://www.wired.com/...intext-change-yours/
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, if it’s unauthorized for government use and/or if classified information is shared, it’s not. I wasn’t making any comment about WhatsApp. I was responding to the statement about personal email vs private servers.

I use WhatsApp to communicate with my family when they’re traveling internationally because it’s internet based and not cell based and it’s encrypted.

That said, I don’t know if FB store communications and have the ability, under subpoena, to deliver decrypted communications. Unlike a personal email service which can produce emails under subpoena unlike a private email server.

If you’re outraged about WhatsApp but not a private email SERVER then perhaps this isn’t a topic for you. (Not YOU personally, the collective YOU).

Can anyone answer the question as to whether or not WhatsApp can produce decrypted communiques under subpoena? I’m aware of far better, more secure technologies to use if you’re really hiding messages.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
efernand wrote:
Quote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.
Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...


This x 10000


Exactly this is much worse than Clinton. Clinton at least had control of her server, here who know who at facebook had access to this. Could be hundreds.


BS.. if it's unsecured it's unsecured... it's not much worse then Clinton?.. to me it's same.
Last edited by: spntrxi: Mar 22, 19 10:19
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
No, if it’s unauthorized for government use and/or if classified information is shared, it’s not. I wasn’t making any comment about WhatsApp. I was responding to the statement about personal email vs private servers.

I use WhatsApp to communicate with my family when they’re traveling internationally because it’s internet based and not cell based and it’s encrypted.

That said, I don’t know if FB store communications and have the ability, under subpoena, to deliver decrypted communications. Unlike a personal email service which can produce emails under subpoena unlike a private email server.

If you’re outraged about WhatsApp but not a private email SERVER then perhaps this isn’t a topic for you. (Not YOU personally, the collective YOU).

After 30 years of working for the DoD it has been drilled into us that we are not to use personal email for work. Why can't I be upset with both Clinton AND Jared and Ivanka and the other idiots who work(ed) for Trump who are using personal email for government business. I don't particularly care if it's a personal server or a personal service. You're not supposed to be doing that!

It was bad when Clinton did it and it's still bad now. And I don't give a shit if they are forwarding to their government accounts for record keeping because that sounds WAY to easy to oopsie and "forget" to send something that should have been.

Also, I've got a government iPhone that is locked down tight as a drum. I'm pretty sure that WhatsApp isn't on my list of approved apps.

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, no, see it's ok that Jared did this because... Obama. And this is just a WITCH HUNT anyway.

So unfair.

Sad.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I completely agree. From what I can gather, I believe virtually 100% of Congress members use personal email for govt matters, or atleast gray area discussions.

The difference between a personal service and private server is retention. A private email provider can be subpoend and even your deleted emails can be retained. If one controls the server, they can bleach bit the drive and wipe the data forever. Neither are properly secured but one gives the opportunity to avoid providing records under subpoena. It’s some order of magnitude worse though either way is not appropriate.

I held govt clearances in the past and we both know the treatment we would’ve received if we ran our work email through a private server or service or WhatsApp. It’s a shame these folks, on both sides, get away with it.

Not to mention the hypocrisy that HRC’s situation was fine as SOC but WhatsApp is criminal. They are both absolutely inappropriate to say the least.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nslckevin wrote:
JD21 wrote:
No, if it’s unauthorized for government use and/or if classified information is shared, it’s not. I wasn’t making any comment about WhatsApp. I was responding to the statement about personal email vs private servers.

I use WhatsApp to communicate with my family when they’re traveling internationally because it’s internet based and not cell based and it’s encrypted.

That said, I don’t know if FB store communications and have the ability, under subpoena, to deliver decrypted communications. Unlike a personal email service which can produce emails under subpoena unlike a private email server.

If you’re outraged about WhatsApp but not a private email SERVER then perhaps this isn’t a topic for you. (Not YOU personally, the collective YOU).


After 30 years of working for the DoD it has been drilled into us that we are not to use personal email for work. Why can't I be upset with both Clinton AND Jared and Ivanka and the other idiots who work(ed) for Trump who are using personal email for government business. I don't particularly care if it's a personal server or a personal service. You're not supposed to be doing that!

It was bad when Clinton did it and it's still bad now. And I don't give a shit if they are forwarding to their government accounts for record keeping because that sounds WAY to easy to oopsie and "forget" to send something that should have been.

Also, I've got a government iPhone that is locked down tight as a drum. I'm pretty sure that WhatsApp isn't on my list of approved apps.

^^^^ THIS

I'm not sure anyone is saying it was ok when Clinton did it. Question is, is anyone saying what Kushner and Ivanka did was ok?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [spntrxi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spntrxi wrote:

BS.. if it's unsecured it's unsecured... it's not much worse then Clinton?.. to me it's same.


It's just as much a problem that it's secured. If not more. The government security services can view government email at will. Employees relinquish the right to any privacy in government-business communication. (unless executive privilege is used for the select few, etc). If you use WhatsApp, the government loses that ability. Or at least makes it orders of magnitude harder. And beyond that it requires the security services to go before a judge to subpoena the property of private messaging/email services. And some libertarian-minded Silicon Valley companies have taken a hard line against turning over data to the government without exhausting every legal hurdle first, e.g. proving probable cause of a crime, etc. The security services should not have to do that to get the communications of government employees.
Last edited by: trail: Mar 22, 19 10:34
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.

Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...

Though they have their different sets of issues, they're both equally not allowed by government employees, and both have very serious issues. Not sure why you're trying to make such a big deal out of the difference.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I’m not making a BIG deal about the difference but there is a difference, as I posted above, that makes the use of a private server by the SOC more concerning to be than use of a service for email (I don’t know whether or not WhatsApp can produce comms under subpoena) :

The difference between a personal service and private server is retention. A private email provider can be subpoend and even your deleted emails can be retained. If one controls the server, they can bleach bit the drive and wipe the data forever. Neither are properly secured but one gives the opportunity to avoid providing records under subpoena. It’s some order of magnitude worse though either way is not appropriate.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
[ If you use WhatsApp, the government loses that ability. Or at least makes it orders of magnitude harder.

But it makes colluding with Russians so much more secure. The failing FBI can't snoop on you as easy....

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
I’m not making a BIG deal about the difference but there is a difference, as I posted above, that makes the use of a private server by the SOC more concerning to be than use of a service for email (I don’t know whether or not WhatsApp can produce comms under subpoena) :

The difference between a personal service and private server is retention. A private email provider can be subpoend and even your deleted emails can be retained. If one controls the server, they can bleach bit the drive and wipe the data forever. Neither are properly secured but one gives the opportunity to avoid providing records under subpoena. It’s some order of magnitude worse though either way is not appropriate.

I'm not sure I agree. Government employees in national security positions sign over a lot of their privacy rights when they take a job. A security service has pretty low hurdles to pass to go in and inspect your private property. A security service is going to have much, much bigger hurdles in asking Facebook (or any other service) to turn over data. National Security Letters. FISA court, etc.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
JD21 wrote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.

Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...


Though they have their different sets of issues, they're both equally not allowed by government employees, and both have very serious issues. Not sure why you're trying to make such a big deal out of the difference.

It is equally bad. Period.

Now the questions:
1. Is it against the law?
2. Was confidential information passed (Which is against the law, hence the outrage at Clinton)
3. Did we already set a precedent that if Clinton wasn't charged for virtually the same can/should Kushner?
4. Are we going to accept that some people get to live by different rules than the rest of us?

I say pursue this and if the law was broken, charge him. If the case doesn't end in conviction, so be it. One of my biggest frustrations with the Clinton email issue was that she certainly broke several laws. The wording that no prosecutor would pursue it was BS. Take it to court and let them decide.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
JD21 wrote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.

Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...


Though they have their different sets of issues, they're both equally not allowed by government employees, and both have very serious issues. Not sure why you're trying to make such a big deal out of the difference.

Oh and if they do go after Kushner legally, then expect the same for Hillary. Maybe they can share a cell.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That’s a fair point, but atleast a document retention demand can be used on a service provider whereas bleach bit is a one and done nuclear option available to those who control the server. But I see your point about a search and seizure if you’re operating under security policy, I hadn’t thought about that.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [velocomp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
velocomp wrote:
trail wrote:
JD21 wrote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.

Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...


Though they have their different sets of issues, they're both equally not allowed by government employees, and both have very serious issues. Not sure why you're trying to make such a big deal out of the difference.


Oh and if they do go after Kushner legally, then expect the same for Hillary. Maybe they can share a cell.

I do too... honestly they need to start somewhere or it will just continue. They need to set a damn date to start and stick to it, anything after this date and you will be fined and or prison time.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [velocomp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
velocomp wrote:

Oh and if they do go after Kushner legally, then expect the same for Hillary. Maybe they can share a cell.


Well Hillary was investigated and her server seized. I'd be curious if the FBI/Mueller is going after Kushner's communications in court. That would be the first step in equivalence.

It's probably passed since she's been out of government since 2013 , but I'd have had zero heartache if the FBI had come down harder on Hillary.
Last edited by: trail: Mar 22, 19 10:49
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
for the document retention policy arguments. It seems weird to make that distinction to me. 100% agree having access to your own server so you make up the own retention policies is different than the service making up their retention policies.

But in both cases they are NOT the government's retention policies. To some degree your retention policies could be never delete anything. Whereas a service's policy could be auto-delete anything after 30 days.

So to some degree using a service's policies could be much worse. Especially when using providers that auto-delete. So I am not sure if that is a winnable distinction.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
That’s a fair point, but atleast a document retention demand can be used on a service provider whereas bleach bit is a one and done nuclear option available to those who control the server. But I see your point about a search and seizure if you’re operating under security policy, I hadn’t thought about that.

Are you sure if I delete an email on a private service it is retained?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
JD21 wrote:
That’s a fair point, but atleast a document retention demand can be used on a service provider whereas bleach bit is a one and done nuclear option available to those who control the server. But I see your point about a search and seizure if you’re operating under security policy, I hadn’t thought about that.


Are you sure if I delete an email on a private service it is retained?


That doesn't say what you think it says.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, I am sure. I’ve been through this in a corporate setting including recovering data from laptops.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [orphious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
orphious wrote:
chaparral wrote:
JD21 wrote:
That’s a fair point, but atleast a document retention demand can be used on a service provider whereas bleach bit is a one and done nuclear option available to those who control the server. But I see your point about a search and seizure if you’re operating under security policy, I hadn’t thought about that.


Are you sure if I delete an email on a private service it is retained?



That doesn't say what you think it says.

But it also doesn't say that they can recover them though. Can you point me to a source that says google can recover deleted emails indefinitely?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
chaparral wrote:
JD21 wrote:
That’s a fair point, but atleast a document retention demand can be used on a service provider whereas bleach bit is a one and done nuclear option available to those who control the server. But I see your point about a search and seizure if you’re operating under security policy, I hadn’t thought about that.


Are you sure if I delete an email on a private service it is retained?



That doesn't say what you think it says.


But it also doesn't say that they can recover them though. Can you point me to a source that says google can recover deleted emails indefinitely?

Show me where it says they can't.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
Yes, I am sure. I’ve been through this in a corporate setting including recovering data from laptops.

Recovering data from laptops is totally different than this situation though. Was that data recovered after 3 other users have used that laptop for 3 years?

Can you show me where google says that they can produce deleted gmail emails years after they are deleted?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [orphious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
orphious wrote:
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
chaparral wrote:
JD21 wrote:
That’s a fair point, but atleast a document retention demand can be used on a service provider whereas bleach bit is a one and done nuclear option available to those who control the server. But I see your point about a search and seizure if you’re operating under security policy, I hadn’t thought about that.


Are you sure if I delete an email on a private service it is retained?



That doesn't say what you think it says.


But it also doesn't say that they can recover them though. Can you point me to a source that says google can recover deleted emails indefinitely?


Show me where it says they can't.

I don't know if they can or can't, but JD21 seems to believe that they can. I am trying to see where the proof is that they can.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
chaparral wrote:
JD21 wrote:
That’s a fair point, but atleast a document retention demand can be used on a service provider whereas bleach bit is a one and done nuclear option available to those who control the server. But I see your point about a search and seizure if you’re operating under security policy, I hadn’t thought about that.


Are you sure if I delete an email on a private service it is retained?



That doesn't say what you think it says.


But it also doesn't say that they can recover them though. Can you point me to a source that says google can recover deleted emails indefinitely?


Show me where it says they can't.


I don't know if they can or can't, but JD21 seems to believe that they can. I am trying to see where the proof is that they can.


I don't know if they can or not but I am pretty sure and it is a reasonable assumption that they can after that 30 period of it being in the trash...For how long who knows.. I did search and the closest I could find was from a user forum:

https://www.avvo.com/...-text-m-1053275.html

Quote:
As the account owner, you should be able to recover your data directly from Google without a subpoena. Google generally keeps all deleted files for 6 months. Farther back than 6 months means they are probably gone forever.


Thats just from some personal injury lawyer so I dont know if he is correct or not. I imagine that they would keep info for a lot longer though for legal purposes alone...
Last edited by: orphious: Mar 22, 19 11:20
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Not sure why you're trying to make such a big deal out of the difference. "

This is a tactic that the right has been using for years. Any two things can be exactly the same, or completely different, as it suits their argument.


The other one they are good at is flipping who the hypocrite is.


If Trump runs an entire campaign based around locking up someone who improper use of emails, and then his own son in law does the same thing and he says nothing, he (and everyone chanting along with him) are clearly being hypocrites. However, if you point that out, they'll claim that YOU are the hypocrite because you didn't say anything about Hillary.




-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
"Not sure why you're trying to make such a big deal out of the difference. "

This is a tactic that the right has been using for years. Any two things can be exactly the same, or completely different, as it suits their argument.


That's true, but I don't think JD21 here is playing partisan games. He's debating honestly.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [orphious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
orphious wrote:
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
chaparral wrote:
JD21 wrote:
That’s a fair point, but atleast a document retention demand can be used on a service provider whereas bleach bit is a one and done nuclear option available to those who control the server. But I see your point about a search and seizure if you’re operating under security policy, I hadn’t thought about that.


Are you sure if I delete an email on a private service it is retained?



That doesn't say what you think it says.


But it also doesn't say that they can recover them though. Can you point me to a source that says google can recover deleted emails indefinitely?


Show me where it says they can't.


I don't know if they can or can't, but JD21 seems to believe that they can. I am trying to see where the proof is that they can.


I don't know if they can or not but I am pretty sure and it is a reasonable assumption that they can after that 30 period of it being in the trash...For how long who knows.. I did search and the closest I could find was from a user forum:

https://www.avvo.com/...-text-m-1053275.html

Quote:
As the account owner, you should be able to recover your data directly from Google without a subpoena. Google generally keeps all deleted files for 6 months. Farther back than 6 months means they are probably gone forever.


Thats just from some personal injury lawyer so I dont know if he is correct or not. I imagine that they would keep info for a lot longer though for legal purposes alone...

Good find, but still makes it fuzzy if beyond 6 months. I still would not say for certain they are stored forever. I don't think they have legal obligation to store them. I mean a storage company does not have a legal obligation to store your possesion, even if they are important documents, forever if you stop paying.

I would imagine a decent amount of data is stored by google forever, but I would imagine eventually the deleted emails are gone eventually. I mean google only cares about that data, why would they waste money storing the rest? This is of course google, I doubt apple would store emails forever, since their business is not based on looking at the emails to target ads, so they have less reason to waste money.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I never used the word â€indefinitely’ or after â€years’. Deleted emails can be recovered from email servers. Over time it can become more difficult. Nothing unique to any particular email server. I have been involved in projects recovering deleted emails from email SERVERS. I have direct experience doing so (or, watching my team do so).

What can immediately prevent such a recovery is Bleachbit or similar. They’re quite good at wiping the disk entirely. Though I understand the govt may have some tech that can partially recover data even after Bleachbit is used but I have no experience with such technology.

I’m not an attorney so I cannot comment on the real world effort using a subpoena to get access to emails from Google, et al. Would they respond to a document retention request including emails the user deleted? I don’t know. Could they, technologically, comply? Yes. For how long? It depends.

And Trail makes a good point about seizing computers from a home of a govt employee - and as long as it was seized prior to a Bleachbit tech being utilized, they would be able to recover a hell of a lot of data including deleted emails from an email server.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ahhh.. better find.. They are keeping everything until the end of time if this is true:

https://webapps.stackexchange.com/...-after-i-delete-them
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
and then his own son in law does the same thing

That's the point. They didn't do the same thing.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not to mention the hypocrisy that HRC’s situation was fine as SOC but WhatsApp is criminal.

Your complaint about the hypocrisy seems to be hyperbole.

I don't recall too many people claiming now or then that Clinton's situation was just fine. And I don't see too many people yet claiming that WhatsApp is criminal. I don't think

Of course, there were and still are plenty of people who think that Clinton's situation was criminal and that she should be locked up. I don't' think I'm going out on a limb when predicting that plenty of those same people will either downplay or stretch to find so way to distinguish that from WhatsApp use.

To the extent that Dems eventually try to claim the WhatsApp use is criminal, they'll most likely be doing it in the context of pointing out the hypocrisy of the right. It'll be an effort to counter Clinton critics.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [orphious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
orphious wrote:
Ahhh.. better find.. They are keeping everything until the end of time if this is true:

https://webapps.stackexchange.com/...-after-i-delete-them

Well, that is just guessing also. Sure they may not have a legal obligation to permanently delete your emails, but that does not mean they are not.

I do assume they are keeping a bunch of data from the emails till the end of time, because that makes business sense. Keeping the entire email does not make business sense.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
I never used the word â€indefinitely’ or after â€years’. Deleted emails can be recovered from email servers. Over time it can become more difficult. Nothing unique to any particular email server. I have been involved in projects recovering deleted emails from email SERVERS. I have direct experience doing so (or, watching my team do so).

What can immediately prevent such a recovery is Bleachbit or similar. They’re quite good at wiping the disk entirely. Though I understand the govt may have some tech that can partially recover data even after Bleachbit is used but I have no experience with such technology.

I’m not an attorney so I cannot comment on the real world effort using a subpoena to get access to emails from Google, et al. Would they respond to a document retention request including emails the user deleted? I don’t know. Could they, technologically, comply? Yes. For how long? It depends.

And Trail makes a good point about seizing computers from a home of a govt employee - and as long as it was seized prior to a Bleachbit tech being utilized, they would be able to recover a hell of a lot of data including deleted emails from an email server.

Ok, so now you agree that emails on a private email server may not be recovered.

So what is the important difference between the two then? Is a private email service different only if they are attempted to be recovered a couple months after deletion? After that they seem pretty equivalent in terms of the emails not being able to be recovered.

Practically it makes no difference, because these investigations are always a couple months behind the actions.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Most of the people on the left didnt think what Clinton did was a big deal at the time.

Obviously in the last 5-10 years there have been major changes to internet security as well as political arguments being made. Most people on the left are wondering why the media isnt covering the current state of affairs like they previously did, not so much to the illegality of it.

Almost all the left would agree that Hillary would have lost her job if she was still being employed by the government. This same that most people feel now.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You can choose to categorize my comments as partisan hypocrisy.

I’m simply making a distinction between employing an email server vs an email service and why, in my opinion, the server construct is worse. Either is bad and violations should be enforced to stop the practice. That said, atleast using a service doesn’t allow the user to wipe out their email communications allowing for the possibility of future recovery. A server construct allows the user to wipe everything.

Again, I don’t know enough about WhatsApp to intelligently comment.

When I hear people say, â€hey - this administration official used gmail for govt work and THATS THE SAME THING HILLARY DID’ it bothers me because it isn’t true. To me, what HRC did as was worse for the reasons I’ve stated.

I’m also extremely uncomfortable with our govt communications being run through Google or MSFT, et al. We as taxpayers spend a lot of $s on govt technology infrasture for security reasons. They should all be punished.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think there were plenty on the left who had a major problem with what Clinton did. A lot of them were Bernie Sanders supporters. So I don't think the dichotomy is left vs. right, but rather Clinton supporters versus everyone else. (Even that lacks nuance.)

But even among the Clinton supporters, I still believe that many if not most thought it was inappropriate. But it was justified as an understandable error at the time, that her conduct as SoS shouldn't be updated internet security standards, and that it just wasn't enough of a problem to offset her other qualities.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
Ahhh.. better find.. They are keeping everything until the end of time if this is true:

https://webapps.stackexchange.com/...-after-i-delete-them


Well, that is just guessing also. Sure they may not have a legal obligation to permanently delete your emails, but that does not mean they are not.

I do assume they are keeping a bunch of data from the emails till the end of time, because that makes business sense. Keeping the entire email does not make business sense.

Sure.. but it doesn't mean they are either. The part to take note is the comments about back ups. They might not have the entire email but you can bet your ass they can restore an entire email from back up.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [orphious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
orphious wrote:
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
Ahhh.. better find.. They are keeping everything until the end of time if this is true:

https://webapps.stackexchange.com/...-after-i-delete-them


Well, that is just guessing also. Sure they may not have a legal obligation to permanently delete your emails, but that does not mean they are not.

I do assume they are keeping a bunch of data from the emails till the end of time, because that makes business sense. Keeping the entire email does not make business sense.


Sure.. but it doesn't mean they are either. The part to take note is the comments about back ups. They might not have the entire email but you can bet your ass they can restore an entire email from back up.

I just don't know where this confidence is coming from. Sure it may be possible, but I don't see any proof that is true, especially beyond a couple months. I just don't see how people are making a blanket statement that emails on a private email service are always recoverable, sure maybe within a month of deleting them, but after that I don't see how that statement can be made with any confidence.

I mean for gmail it is more likely to be true because of the business, but do you think that applies to AOL? Do you think an apple.com account would retain as long? What about proton mail? I
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is this really how you debate a topic? Putting words in the mouth of others then making bold statements? I never said indefinitely or after years. Or any timeframe. It’s not a concession to state it gets more difficult over time. It does.

It’s like a chalkboard. You write on it then erase it. You can probably make out what was written. Then you write something else and erase it. The original writing is much harder to decipher. Keep doing that and eventually you’ll never decipher the original words. Often, computers will make available the storage of deleted emails to more immediate storage needs and overwrite the original data. The more this happens the harder to recover. Google may very well not make the space storing deleted emails available to be overwritten (I doubt they do) so they can retain it for their own purposes. But I have no direct knowledge.

It’s a simple fact. If you need to recover emails from an individual - particularly one who has no interest in you seeing the emails - then you have a far better chance if they use an email service than if they use their own email server and utilize Bleachbit.

There are very valid arguments that my position that one is worse than the other is incorrect - but there is no valid argument that my position they are different is incorrect.

In the context of a govt official - both practices are inappropriate and a violation of policy. And unsafe.

I’m happy to continue to debate my point with you but not if you continue to embellish my words to debate yourself.

And, as a side note, I’ll bet most govt officials are too stupid to realize their use of email services allow for email recovery. Or that deleted emails may not actually be deleted.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
Is this really how you debate a topic? Putting words in the mouth of others then making bold statements? I never said indefinitely or after years. Or any timeframe. It’s not a concession to state it gets more difficult over time. It does.

Ok, I apologize if I am putting words in your mouth. From my understanding you are saying that the difference between a private server and a private email service is retention.

Private server: deleted emails can be recovered, unless something like bleach bit can be used.

Private email service: deleted emails can be recovered depending on the service and also if the recovery is within a certain time frame of the deletion.

I just don't see how the retention differences are meaningful. Especially since investigation are not immediate, they take time and that will eat into any of that window available with a private email service.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We have a president that has committed most forms of fraud and treason. Half the country thinks that fraud and treason are admirable when conservatives do it. The other half have been unable to do anything about it.

Inappropriate handling of classified information????

That is like trying to give Ted Bundy jail time for jaywalking after the jury has already decided that serial killing is “not a real crime. “
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i believe HRC should've been prosecuted and the courts decide the matter. If Kushner (assuming he's an administration official - I really don't know what he is) was using a private email server in his basement at home which was wiped with Bleachbit before the feds seized it then I'd be on this forum calling for him to be immediately prosecuted.

His use of WhatsApp, to me, falls into the same category as vast majority of Congress who use private email accounts for personal and govt work. A practice that needs to stop but TO ME is in a different category than the server debacle.

OTOH - I haven't really thought through the WhatsApp scenario and I may come to my own conclusion that it's as bad as the private email server use.

My opinion on the pro-HRC crowd is they said, and continue to say, that it's the same as so many administration officials who use email services such as gmail. That's what I recall hearing consistently. I've heard Democrats make these statements often when an administration official is exposed for using gmail. I just cannot understand why, at this point, these folks don't understand the difference. Pet peeve of mine, I suppose.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK - we can agree to disagree. You've stated my position accurately. It's the POSSIBILITY of recovery in one scenario and the IMPOSSIBILITY of recovery in the other. A document retention letter would be sent at the very beginning of the legal process and that would prevent the individual from deleting anything off the server (because the service provider was controlling the server) and IF the service provider could be legally compelled, previously deleted emails MIGHT be recoverable - perhaps for a few months, perhaps forever, none of us is certain.

It's the certainty of wiping the server with Bleachbit that, to me, makes a material difference. If for no other reason it demonstrates malicious intent. I'd be out of my mind if Trump and his merry band of morons were using a private email server in their basement. It's such a slap in the face to all of us citizens/taxpayers. Then, if under subpoena, Bleachbit was employed, I'd be donating my pittance of money to prosecute the motherfuckers.

So, as you might imagine, I'm not thrilled with Ms. Clinton. We will never know what was in her emails that were worth wiping for eternity.

And, yeah, far more serious crimes may be occurring with this administration, but atleast these are under investigation and full and complete access being provided to investigators, best we can tell. Imagine if Trump could Bleachbit his tax returns and Russian financial dealings.
Last edited by: JD21: Mar 22, 19 12:32
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I mean it’s hard to argue with your beliefs. But the beliefs are not shared by the fbi director at the time. He himself said that no prosecutor would have prosecuted her.

Arguing what Hillary did and what is currently being done is somewhat silly because at the time others (like Powell) has used other services. That’s why that distinction is made.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I mean it’s hard to argue with your beliefs. But the beliefs are not shared by the fbi director at the time. He himself said that no prosecutor would have prosecuted her.

How the investigation into Hillary was handled is a whole other debate.

Setting up your own email server is a big deal. It's not that hard, and there may be legitimate reasons for it, but if Hillary wanted to avoid retention policies and FOIA requests, and to be able to permanently delete emails, it's the only way.

She admitted to deleting 30k "personal" emails, and supposedly turned over all the rest, but then emails between her and Sydney Blumenthal were found that shows that she absolutely did not retain and release all work emails.

Her server was not seiezed, and she had ample time to delete emails and digitally 'wipe' the drives. I think I heard they physically destroyed them also, and turned over the server with new drives.

It was an obvious attempt to communicate secretly, without oversight.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [efernand] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
efernand wrote:
Quote:
and then his own son in law does the same thing


That's the point. They didn't do the same thing.

But they fucking did.

They both used private email for government work purposes. An act that was forbidden in both cases.

I don't give a flying fuck if Ivanka or Hillary claim that they met the requirement by forwarding or cc'ing their government accounts or if Jared is taking screen shots and forwarding to his government account. Those are not approved communication methods for their jobs.

I got my ass chewed by a shipyard security guy because I told one of the weekend admins to send me an email on my personal account if something went wrong during the weekend batch run. I didn't say, send me the error message, I just wanted him to send me a heads up to the email that I was likely to check on the weekend so that I'd know to check in on my government laptop. But I got chewed out and never did it again. After a fucking year of "LOCK HER UP!" I'd think that maybe the message was out that this was a "bad thing" and "smart people", you know like people who work in the fucking white house would be able to put those two things together. But maybe I overestimate them. Or maybe they are fucking hypocrites trying to sneak something through after spending a year telling the world just how fucking bad it is to do, well, you know, what they were doing.

Seriously, could they be any more hypocritical?

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [efernand] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your conclusion is not what the fbi came up with.

You are able to have your own beliefs on the matter, but that does not make them true.
Quote Reply
Post deleted by spudone [ In reply to ]
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spudone wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
chaparral wrote:
efernand wrote:
Quote:
Just amazes me that people still don’t understand the difference between a personal email SERVICE and a personal email SERVER for official government business.
Or perhaps it’s more convenient to remain ignorant.

Carry on...


This x 10000


Exactly this is much worse than Clinton. Clinton at least had control of her server, here who know who at facebook had access to this. Could be hundreds.


BS.. if it's unsecured it's unsecured... it's not much worse then Clinton?.. to me it's same.

It's not just the lack of security. It's the problem with circumventing the government recordkeeping requirements. That can be true of a personal server or a 3rd party non-government service, especially when it's encrypted.

All of this is true. Problems exist in terms of records keeping, encryption, privacy, security of information, etc.

That said, I would say it's not entirely surprising that someone might end up using WhatsApp when dealing with some foreign countries. I won't speak from personal experience, but I can say that there are countries whose governments do business almost solely on apps like that. They just don't have other ways to reliably communicate outside of formal governmental communications like demarches.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
Your conclusion is not what the fbi came up with.

You are able to have your own beliefs on the matter, but that does not make them true.

Yeh....the good old FBI.....run by......you guessed it...... James Comey. Tells you something......right?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [gphin305] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gphin305 wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
Your conclusion is not what the fbi came up with.

You are able to have your own beliefs on the matter, but that does not make them true.

Yeh....the good old FBI.....run by......you guessed it...... James Comey. Tells you something......right?

So I think we can agree here that the FBI should probe this and if they don’t charge Jared then it’s obviously because they are partisan GOP hacks. Amirite?

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
gphin305 wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
Your conclusion is not what the fbi came up with.

You are able to have your own beliefs on the matter, but that does not make them true.


Yeh....the good old FBI.....run by......you guessed it...... James Comey. Tells you something......right?


So I think we can agree here that the FBI should probe this and if they don’t charge Jared then it’s obviously because they are partisan GOP hacks. Amirite?

You are kidding....right? Or do you think this is on the same level of HRCs emails being subpoenaed by Congress which she ignored and decided to bleachbit? You can't be serious.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [gphin305] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gphin305 wrote:
BLeP wrote:
gphin305 wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
Your conclusion is not what the fbi came up with.

You are able to have your own beliefs on the matter, but that does not make them true.


Yeh....the good old FBI.....run by......you guessed it...... James Comey. Tells you something......right?


So I think we can agree here that the FBI should probe this and if they don’t charge Jared then it’s obviously because they are partisan GOP hacks. Amirite?

You are kidding....right? Or do you think this is on the same level of HRCs emails being subpoenaed by Congress which she ignored and decided to bleachbit? You can't be serious.

Agreed. The FBI won’t look into this because they are GOP partisan hacks.

I mean that’s what you would say if this was AOC. So I am just assuming that you would agreed that the same applies on both sides. Right?

Because you don’t sound like a partisan hack to me.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
Your conclusion is not what the fbi came up with.

You are able to have your own beliefs on the matter, but that does not make them true.

We have already covered this in another thread. Facts are facts. Hillary broke the law by giving someone without clearance access to classified material. She also broke the law by having classified material on a private email server. Both of those would land you in jail, but Hillary got a pass. She should be in jail. It seems like Jared should be there along with her.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
The difference between a personal service and private server is retention.

The other big difference is that email on a personal service can be accessed by some of the employees of that personal service. If you have government secrets on a gmail account, Google admins CAN read the emails. They have policies that don't allow them to do this, but technically they have the capability. And I don't think we should trust our national security to Google's honesty.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [SolaDeoGloria] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SolaDeoGloria wrote:
JD21 wrote:
The difference between a personal service and private server is retention.

The other big difference is that email on a personal service can be accessed by some of the employees of that personal service. If you have government secrets on a gmail account, Google admins CAN read the emails. They have policies that don't allow them to do this, but technically they have the capability. And I don't think we should trust our national security to Google's honesty.

The company that ran Hillary’s server also had access to all her emails.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [gphin305] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ignoring fact that intelligence community had security clearance objections to kushner and his financial vulnerabilities...
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
OK - we can agree to disagree. You've stated my position accurately. It's the POSSIBILITY of recovery in one scenario and the IMPOSSIBILITY of recovery in the other. A document retention letter would be sent at the very beginning of the legal process and that would prevent the individual from deleting anything off the server (because the service provider was controlling the server) and IF the service provider could be legally compelled, previously deleted emails MIGHT be recoverable - perhaps for a few months, perhaps forever, none of us is certain.

It's the certainty of wiping the server with Bleachbit that, to me, makes a material difference. If for no other reason it demonstrates malicious intent. I'd be out of my mind if Trump and his merry band of morons were using a private email server in their basement. It's such a slap in the face to all of us citizens/taxpayers. Then, if under subpoena, Bleachbit was employed, I'd be donating my pittance of money to prosecute the motherfuckers.

So, as you might imagine, I'm not thrilled with Ms. Clinton. We will never know what was in her emails that were worth wiping for eternity.

And, yeah, far more serious crimes may be occurring with this administration, but atleast these are under investigation and full and complete access being provided to investigators, best we can tell. Imagine if Trump could Bleachbit his tax returns and Russian financial dealings.

Just an update, Sam Patten, who worked for the Trump Inaguration Committee and hid foreign donors, also deleted 200k emails in Gmail. He spent over 10k trying to recover them and could not. So maybe you can't recover emails deleted in Gmail.


Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Then the question would be whether or not Google could produce the deleted archive in response to a subpoena. Assuming this individual contacted Google and was told there is no way they can do so then perhaps it cannot be done easily. If Google had to run recovery tools, I highly doubt they would do so unless they were under a subpoena.

It's also pretty sketchy this guy deleted 200,000 emails because he thought he satisfied the subpoena or document production request...but that's a different matter entirely.
Last edited by: JD21: Apr 8, 19 13:31
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It appears as though Kushner was "extremely careless."
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Can anyone show me the part of Jared’s CV that qualifies him to lead a trump plague task force? Any task force!
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chriskal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chriskal wrote:


Can anyone show me the part of Jared’s CV that qualifies him to lead a trump plague task force? Any task force!

He married Ivanka.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
chriskal wrote:


Can anyone show me the part of Jared’s CV that qualifies him to lead a trump plague task force? Any task force!

He married Ivanka.

Makes no sense.. why would Trump reward the guy who cockblocked him?
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
chriskal wrote:


Can anyone show me the part of Jared’s CV that qualifies him to lead a trump plague task force? Any task force!

He married Ivanka.

Damn. If I didn’t know better I’d think he wasn’t bringing in the best people.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [WelshinPhilly] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
WelshinPhilly wrote:
chaparral wrote:
chriskal wrote:


Can anyone show me the part of Jared’s CV that qualifies him to lead a trump plague task force? Any task force!

He married Ivanka.

Makes no sense.. why would Trump reward the guy who cockblocked him?

Jared can’t cockblock anyone. He’s smooth, like a Ken doll.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [chriskal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chriskal wrote:
Jared can’t cockblock anyone. He’s smooth, like a Ken doll.

and he's narcissistically calculating like his FIL and Patrick Batemen. The episode on him from the Netflix series Greedy Money is interesting. After Kushner bought the New York Observer they threw a party. I believe it was the cover illustrator walked up to introduce himself to Kusher, who was standing in an elevated position looking over the room. Apparently Kushner said something like "Nice to meet you cover illustrator, but there are much more important people to talk to here" and walked off. If that isn't some American Psycho shit right there. Seems almost too insane be true. My initial reaction would have been to kick him in the balls, but after a moment of introspection, I would have come to the conclusion that he had a very valid point there.

The thing that pisses me off most about Kusher is his perfect posture. That's a bit of jealousy though.
Quote Reply
Re: But, but, but... Kushners WhatsApp? [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The "But, but, but her emails!" crowd were silent about Kushner using WhatsApp for official business.

What will the "Lock her Up!" "Hunters laptop!" cult say about this?

Before Giving Billions to Jared Kushner, Saudi Investment Fund Had Big Doubts
Before it committed $2 billion to Mr. Kushner’s firm, Public Investment Fund officials questioned the justification for taking such a big risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/...&smid=tw-nytimes

Quote:
Those objections included: “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management”; the possibility that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk”; due diligence on the fledgling firm’s operations that found them “unsatisfactory in all aspects”; a proposed asset management fee that “seems excessive”; and “public relations risks” from Mr. Kushner’s prior role as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, former President Donald J. Trump, according to minutes of the panel’s meeting last June 30.


Kushner played the lead role in defending the Saudi butcher. He was compensated well for his services to the Prince.

Quote:
The Saudi fund agreed to invest twice as much and on more generous terms with Mr. Kushner than it did at about the same time with former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin — who was also starting a new fund — even though Mr. Mnuchin had a record as a successful investor before entering government, the documents show. The amount of the investment in his firm, Liberty Strategic Capital — $1 billion — has not been previously disclosed.
[/quote]
Quote Reply