The email scandal

[swansont]

No, not that one. The Bush White House one.

THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

[T]he Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails. “It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC.

I'm not seeing the same outrage and consternation despite the much larger scope of the problem, and were talking about the whole of the White House as the scope, and subpoenas being ignored. Plus, the pattern of which emails are lost suggests that these were not lost by accident.

 

In 1978, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which mandated that all presidential and vice presidential records created after January 20, 1981, be preserved and that the public, not the president, owned the records.

 

 

The Clinton White House set up a system to prevent deletion of such emails, but that system was bypassed with the private system of the Bush administration.

 

 

[StringJunky]

No, not that one. The Bush White House one.

 

THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

 

I'm not seeing the same outrage and consternation despite the much larger scope of the problem, and were talking about the whole of the White House as the scope, and subpoenas being ignored. Plus, the pattern of which emails are lost suggests that these were not lost by accident.

 

 

The Clinton White House set up a system to prevent deletion of such emails, but that system was bypassed with the private system of the Bush administration.

 

 

Should they not be brought to lawful account retrospectively? If I killed somebody 40 years ago I would still be tried.

[dimreepr]

They should, but they won't.

[Ten oz]

There is also emails showing Sec. Powell used devices that didn't store data when he was at the Stae Dept. so we have no idea how many of his emails are missing. The whole thing is absurd and the media should be ashamed of itself for their coverage. From Clinton we have Tax returns, thousands of emails, hacked then leaked emails, Foundation financials, and now people are demanding medical records. From Trump we have nothing yet the issue of transparency is only directed at Clinton. Clinton's emails have beenthrough a FBI investigation and congressional hearings and it still hasn't been enough. Trump just say no to the release of anything and everythings that is perfectly acceptable.

[iNow]

Core issue: more GOP hypocrisy

[Willie71]

Can't they both be guilty rather than the "...but the other guys did it too!" defense?

[imatfaal]

Can't they both be guilty rather than the "...but the other guys did it too!" defense?

 

Yes. But only one side has been investigated multiple times mainly due to concerted partisan pressure in the legislature giving rising to a crucial talking point in the most important election for many years.

[swansont]

Can't they both be guilty rather than the "...but the other guys did it too!" defense?

 

 

Sure. But you can't say that these were identical and just leave it there. There's still a difference between "I shouldn't have done that" and refusing subpoenas, there's a difference between deleting personal emails and having entire swaths of emails missing at critical times that most likely included official government records, and there's the scope of who was involved. Plus the level of media attention.

[Ten oz]

Can't they both be guilty rather than the "...but the other guys did it too!" defense?

What are they guilty of specifically? These are not high crimes and misdemeanors but rather office policy infractions. The Network I use at work requires my I.D. to operate. If I walk across the hall to speak to someone, get coffee, use the restroom, or etc and forget my I.D. in the computer I am in violation of policy. That is just one simple example but will say that I see multiple types of violations daily.

 

The issue isn't that both are guilty per se but rather one side is exaggerating the scale of the offense while ignoring their own behavior in hopes of scoring political points.

[Willie71]

From my understanding, the criticisms of Clinton is that she acts as if she's republican lite. This seems to fit the defense offered here. Is Clinton less bad than Bush II, probably the worst president in a century? Sure. Is Clinton better than trump, the most horrific candidate ever? Sure. Does she do the same terrible things on a smaller scale? Yes.

[Ten oz]

From my understanding, the criticisms of Clinton is that she acts as if she's republican lite. This seems to fit the defense offered here. Is Clinton less bad than Bush II, probably the worst president in a century? Sure. Is Clinton better than trump, the most horrific candidate ever? Sure. Does she do the same terrible things on a smaller scale? Yes.

She does the same terrible things on a smaller scale that Bush did and elected Republican leadership does, yes. Than Trump does, no. Trump is on his own scale. Bush was terrible but at the very least seemed to have a basic understanding of what the President's role is and the various limitations of that authority. That understanding is what prompted him to: get a vote on the use of force in Iraq prior to invading, send Powell to the U.N., and seek a coalition with those allies we could get. It is why his Attorney General so carefully defined torture to allow for waterboarding. Terrible as those things were Trump said, has bragged, he'd do worse.

[John Cuthber]

Can't they both be guilty rather than the "...but the other guys did it too!" defense?

If everyone does it, is it a crime?

[Delta1212]

If everyone does it, is it a crime?

Well, it is if it's illegal, but only in the literal sense.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Delta1212

[MigL]

Yeah, if the murder rate in the US gets any higher, they can de-criminalize it.

[Phi for All]

Yeah, if the murder rate in the US gets any higher, they can de-criminalize it.

 

Our murder rate is the lowest it's been since 1967.

[Delta1212]

Yeah, if the murder rate in the US gets any higher, they can de-criminalize it.

The most recent year I was able to find complete data on was 2014, which put the murder rate in the US at a 51-year low, and was part of a consistent downward trend over the last 25 years.

[MigL]

No silly.

I meant in comparison to other countries.

It was meant to be a play on John's comment that if its common enough, you may as well legalize it.

 

You guys need to have a couple more drinks and 'lighten up'.