In a fast paced environment, procedures and expectations can be expected to evolve accordingly.
The point I'm making is that I don't think you, or anybody else actually cares about the emails—they care it's something they can criticize Clinton for. Before her, nobody gave a shit. After her, nobody will give a shit. They don't matter, except that they can be used to criticize Clinton. So of course nobody complained about it with Bush, because nobody cares about them.
> I suspect a big chunk of the people complaining about this would have complained even harder when Bush did it (if what you say is true), if they had been old enough to be aware what was going on
They wouldn't have. The rest of us had much bigger complaints to make, that complaining about deleting emails would have been a laughable waste of time.
Hillary Clinton is a grown ass woman. She knows what she'd doing. She held a position of high responsibility, that deals with highly sensitive intel that impacts many facets of national security, and had an obligation to keep her correspondence secure as well as open to FOIA requests.
That she didn't, and has repeatedly lied about it, should concern everyone. That she was willing to leave her server open to possible hacking simply for personal convenience and gain, should concern everyone. It does me.
How is it just deleting emails? She's literally hiding her tracks and doesn't want people to see what she's talking about. And when caught, she lies and deletes the evidence. I honestly do not understand how someone like you, who ostensibly is lecturing us about simply being rah rah for "our team" can NOT care about this. Honestly how can't you? You are literally telling us not to look at it through the lens of our favored political party. So then don't. How is this defensible?
I'm a little less familiar about previous instances, but if you're referring to Colin Powell's actions.. from what I've read they are no where near the extent to which she used private server for gov't communication.. BUT! I absolutely do not support him doing it either! If he broke a law, he should be prosecuted. I'd be ok with it happening even now.
Do laws and regulations have any meaning anymore if they don't apply to those at the top? We all have our favorites, and surely there is hypocrisy when we like to look the other way when it's "our guy/gal"... next time something like this happens I'll definitely care then too. A big part of it is about what kind of precedent it sets for future politicians. How much more will they hide from the public with no threat of consequences?
None of them broke any law, as laid out by Comey, who is famous for bashing heads with politicians. The law was executed by Comey faithfully and there was no crime to prosecute.
Yea that's terrible. If there was evidence of a (possibly) compromised, unsecured personal server, with high level officials talking about national security on it (including Bush) then I would think it would be even worse. But it is bad as is.
Also, I think Bush was a pretty terrible president in many respects and overall I'm not a fan of his.
If he used, or personally signed off on the use of, then he should have been held responsible. As well as others that did so themselves.
And Powell's recommendation that Clinton use a personal server is a perfect example of an arrogant, entitled, self-interested "leader" who only cares about political expediency and convenience for themselves at the expense of destroying government transparency and risking security leaks and hacks.
As a General who above all should know this better than anyone, he's a disgrace for recommending this, in my opinion.
If watching the pundit shows has taught me anything, it's that there are few classes of public figures more venal, hawkish, shameless, or blatantly self-serving than the military brass. It's a miracle they can convince anyone to follow their orders.
Based on what evidence?
> they care it's something they can criticize Clinton for.
I'm no fan of Trump either. I wish Clinton were a good candidate so she would wipe the floor with him.
> So of course nobody complained about it with Bush, because nobody cares about them.
I was 12 years old when Bush was elected. That's why I didn't care about whatever he may or may not have done.
You know absolutely nothing about me or anyone else and you are presuming people's motives without any evidence or justification.
Sure, if it was just one or two that's one thing, but A email is public in the first place and B when your the fifth person in a row to do something you generally assume that's just how it's done.
No, we complained constantly. But we had more important things to complain about then where his email server was.
Politifact tells the truth of it: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/...
Mcphage is trolling. Let's not feed him anymore.
It's actually exactly what it is.
If Trump[1] is even worse, then sure, vote for Hillary. But that doesn't mean that she's good or that people have to like her.
As an aside: if that were the argument Hillary fans had been making the whole time: "Yeah, we know Hillary is bad and corrupt, but at least she's way better than Trump, so you should vote for her", then I would respect them a lot more.
Instead, it's mostly been a chorus of "OMG, why are you dragging up conspiracy theories about her e-mails! You right-wing simpleton! Go back to Breitbart and argue about lizard people!"
Nothing is more annoying than people being smug when they're actually wrong.
[1]: Trump is Hillary's competition, in case anyone didn't know. Not sure why anyone is still talking about Bush.
Therefore, no there are NOT just two teams. Voting for the lesser evil is so much of what is wrong with the direction of this country today.
This is true, and baffling. I try to vote as if the process matters, although I'll be the first to admit it's largely a waste of my time. Meanwhile, the morons who loudly declaim the fundamental importance of voting, care only about being "right". SMH.
Given all the contention over the HRC email thing and specifically over this reddit revelation, I'm not so sure that the situation we have is clearly defined within the laws (otherwise why wouldn't everything be clear cut and decided already?).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...
What is clear however, is that judging Clinton's mishandling of emails as a crime, when only one person in a hundred years in completely different circumstances has been prosecuted for the same crime, would be unprecedented.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-...
Snowden wrote in wired, though the article doesn't cover the latest news https://www.wired.com/2015/09/snowden-people-get-fired-prose...
There are several distinctions between the Clinton case and the Petraeus case.
* The Clinton case revolved around an unclassified context while the Petraeus case revolved around information taken from a classified context.
* The Clinton case involved data not marked classified (keep in mind emailing New York Times links to someone about about Snowden would be highly classified information), while the Petraeus case involved books that were clearly classified.
* The Clinton case showed no intent while the Petraeus case involved clear intent.
* The Clinton case involved an internal server while the Petraeus case involved open books given to his mistress.
* Clinton cooperated with the FBI while Petraeus intentionally misled the FBI.
Also, reminder that Snowden is a wanted criminal asking for a pardon for leaking 200,000 classified documents to the press, while taking refuge in the state of a geopolitical enemy. He will make scripted media appearances on behalf of Putin [1]. He is not a reliable source.
Unfortunately, every single person that I know, that has a security clearance, can easily punch holes in almost all your points.
My views are based on what I have read and what I have been told by people with, collectively, 100+ years of security clearance holding.
* The Clinton private email server was not cleared for handling classified info. Yet classified information went through it as we now know.
* Some things were marked classified and some were not. This has no bearing on anything however. The onus is on the person who has the clearance to treat and handle all classified information properly regardless of whether it is marked properly or not.
* Clinton's intent: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
i.e. take classified info, put into email form and strip the classified markings from it, then send to me.
Source: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605
I'll stop there. Basically your points are garbage.
What you cannot reasonably do, is take the legal opinion of the Director of the FBI, that the Clinton case is different from the Petraeus case, and disagree based on the fact that you have 100+ years of security clearance holding.
I have explained to you key points in James Comey's legal opinion that the Petraeus situation is not applicable to Clinton. I'm sure you're more knowledgeable than I in some area or another, however that doesn't change the fact that the legal position of the FBI has already decided. You can disagree if you want, in the same way people from the internet disagree that climate change exists. I am not interested your vague insinuations.
Petraeus vs Clinton is a red herring, I didn't mention Petraeus. I was referring to the case of Brian Nishimura.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/peak-fbi-corruption...
Seriously? "Oh, man, we sure left a loophole you can drive a truck through! Better update the training materials to make sure clearance holders know this is kosher..."
Sorry, but my prior on this claim is just way too low to casually accept that the analysis, as given in the first link, is plugging the relevant laws into the facts. Classified-material law just doesn't make sense if something like that is legal.
Dude, do you think this is a football game? That scoring a point against your opponent negates points scored against you?
I suspect a big chunk of the people complaining about this would have complained even harder when Bush did it (if what you say is true), if they had been old enough to be aware what was going on, and had social media like we do now.
So, what is your point? How does Bush doing it matter literally at all to whether Clinton should get in trouble?