SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
At least four senior officials in President Trump's White House have active accounts on a private Republican National Committee (RNC) email system, according to a new report.
Counselor Kellyanne Conway, White House press secretary Sean Spicer, chief strategist and senior counselor Stephen Bannon and senior adviser Jared Kushner — Trump's son-in-law — all have rnchq.org email accounts, Newsweek reported Wednesday.
Trump repeatedly attacked 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton last year for using a private email server during her tenure as secretary of State.
[...] Newsweek added the rnchq.org email system caused controversy during former President George W. Bush's administration.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) accused Bush White House staffers in 2007 of using the system to evade transparency.
The rnchq.org email system was involved in the loss of 22 million Bush administration emails, Newsweek reported, many from around the start of the Iraq War.
Former President Obama’s administration found the lost emails after private lawsuits were filed, it added.
Those messages are now in the National Archives, according to Newsweek, but remain under the national security shield and have not been seen by the public.
[Update:] Newsweek updated its story and is now reporting:
Since this story was published, the RNC has deleted the emails of Bannon, Kushner and Conway. RNC spokesman Ryan Mahoney told Newsweek Wednesday night that the emails were set up only for distribution lists, “There is nothing wrong with having an RNC account if it is not used for any official government business,” he said. “In this case, the officials previously employed by the Trump campaign never had functional email accounts with the RNC. The RNC has various distribution lists to communicate with state parties or campaigns, and as a byproduct these contact groups are assigned RNCHQ.org addresses that only forward to external accounts at their respective organizations.”
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @05:29PM
So why do you quote a 2012 hearing article when there were seven or eight or more investigations done after that, plus the official report from Republicans that found very few differences between what was said at the hearings and what they put in the report? Then they conveniently release this tepid report, without including any dissenting opinions, just after the election even though the report was done five months before. It served its purpose and turned up no useful information that wasn't already revealed, just like Comey's announcement.
Boy, talk about using flimsiest excuses by the fanbois. The sad part is you most likely consider yourself one of the "fair and balanced" people on these topics.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday January 28 2017, @12:44AM
So why do you quote a 2012 hearing article when there were seven or eight or more investigations done after that, plus the official report from Republicans that found very few differences between what was said at the hearings and what they put in the report?
Because I didn't need to. Evidence is good enough.