For 18 months, Republican strategists, political pundits, reporters and Americans who follow them have been pursuing Hillary Clinton’s personal email habits, and no evidence of a crime has been found. But now they at least have the skills and interest to focus on a much larger and deeper email conspiracy, one involving war, lies, a private server run by the Republican Party and contempt of Congress citations—all of it still unsolved and unpunished.
Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.
Like Clinton, the 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. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”
More in article
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html
It is striking that our government has not adapted to current technology. The handling of email servers, past and present, and the inadequate security is just one example. The use, and misuse, of social media has been at the forefront of the current campaign and for the most part it has been appalling. Candidates and their minions "tweeting" preposterous, inaccurate, and offensive material and then hiding behind the excuse "I just re-tweeted it". It is clear that we are suffering from a lack of standards for the use of technology, both from a security standpoint and an acceptable use standpoint. Meanwhile servers continue to get hacked, placing personal and national security at risk, and people are continually fed a stream of misinformation that is totally unfiltered for accuracy or crudity. It's time we catch up with the times and set some standards for the acceptable use of technology.
[Edited on 9/18/2016 by bob1954]
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Sure, but only if they broke a law.
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
This is very charitable of you considering the Democrats do not make full time exercises out of investing republicans. Do you actually know of any republican who goes to Washington for any other purpose than to end Obamacare and impugn democrats?
This issue is--as Bob says--a systemic one and archaic tech systems should be upgraded. Congress should have turned their attention to this problem instead of seeing it as another excuse to attack Hillary.
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
This is very charitable of you considering the Democrats do not make full time exercises out of investing republicans. Do you actually know of any republican who goes to Washington for any other purpose than to end Obamacare and impugn democrats?
This issue is--as Bob says--a systemic one and archaic tech systems should be upgraded. Congress should have turned their attention to this problem instead of seeing it as another excuse to attack Hillary.
Ms. Clinton has claimed that she had no idea that "C" meant classified, along with being caught in about 17 other lies surrounding this matter. Which "archaic" tech system should we blame this on?
Ms. Clinton has claimed that she had no idea that "C" meant classified, along with being caught in about 17 other lies surrounding this matter. Which "archaic" tech system should we blame this on?
Character recognition?
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Sure, but only if they broke a law.
Again, disagree. Just because no laws may have been broken doesn't make something OK. Not by a long shot.
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Sure, but only if they broke a law.
Again, disagree. Just because no laws may have been broken doesn't make something OK. Not by a long shot.
But you just said "they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law" which implies that they only did something wrong if they can be prosecuted for it, i.e. if laws were broken. Your statements are in conflict with each other, please explain.
[Edited on 9/19/2016 by gondicar]
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Sure, but only if they broke a law.
Again, disagree. Just because no laws may have been broken doesn't make something OK. Not by a long shot.
But you just said "they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law" which implies that they only did something wrong if they can be prosecuted for it, i.e. if laws were broken. Your statements are in conflict with each other, please explain.
Nowhere did I say they only did something wrong if laws were broken. Bob did, but I don't agree. Hope that helps to clear your confusion.
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Sure, but only if they broke a law.
Again, disagree. Just because no laws may have been broken doesn't make something OK. Not by a long shot.
You are saying people who have not broken a law should be prosecuted. Think man!
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Sure, but only if they broke a law.
Again, disagree. Just because no laws may have been broken doesn't make something OK. Not by a long shot.
But you just said "they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law" which implies that they only did something wrong if they can be prosecuted for it, i.e. if laws were broken. Your statements are in conflict with each other, please explain.
Nowhere did I say they only did something wrong if laws were broken. Bob did, but I don't agree. Hope that helps to clear your confusion.
Let's review:
2112 said: "It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it."
You replied: "I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
So you don't agree that it is only a scandal if a Clinton does it, and try to clarify that by adding a statement about accusations about the prior admin and being prosecuted to the full extend of the law. Seems reasonable to infer that what you were saying here is that it's only a scandal if laws were broken and prosecutions take place. If that's not what you meant, then you should clarify because right now you look like a very confused person.
Nowhere did I say they only did something wrong if laws were broken. Bob did, but I don't agree. Hope that helps to clear your confusion.
No, you said if documents were mis-handled they should be prosecuted. I said they should only be prosecuted if they broke the law. You disagreed with that. It's all in this thread for anyone to read.
Nowhere did I say they only did something wrong if laws were broken. Bob did, but I don't agree. Hope that helps to clear your confusion.
No, you said if documents were mis-handled they should be prosecuted. I said they should only be prosecuted if they broke the law. You disagreed with that. It's all in this thread for anyone to read.
I've also said in (at least) one other thread that you don't have to be breaking the law to be engaging in slimy behavior. All there for anyone to read as well.....Keep trying.
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
This seems to me to be written in a way that allows no other interpretation.
Nowhere did I say they only did something wrong if laws were broken. Bob did, but I don't agree. Hope that helps to clear your confusion.
No, you said if documents were mis-handled they should be prosecuted. I said they should only be prosecuted if they broke the law. You disagreed with that. It's all in this thread for anyone to read.
I've also said in (at least) one other thread that you don't have to be breaking the law to be engaging in slimy behavior. All there for anyone to read as well.....Keep trying.
We're not talking about what you said in another thread. And, yes, of course there are all sorts of ways to behave legally but deplorably. I don't think anyone would say differently. We don't need you to tell us that. But what you said here was that if people mishandled documents they should be prosecuted. I agreed, but only if they broke a law. You disagreed with that. You can't deny it. It's documented on these pages.
Nowhere did I say they only did something wrong if laws were broken. Bob did, but I don't agree. Hope that helps to clear your confusion.
No, you said if documents were mis-handled they should be prosecuted. I said they should only be prosecuted if they broke the law. You disagreed with that. It's all in this thread for anyone to read.
I've also said in (at least) one other thread that you don't have to be breaking the law to be engaging in slimy behavior. All there for anyone to read as well.....Keep trying.
We're not talking about what you said in another thread. And, yes, of course there are all sorts of ways to behave legally but deplorably. I don't think anyone would say differently. We don't need you to tell us that. But what you said here was that if people mishandled documents they should be prosecuted. I agreed, but only if they broke a law. You disagreed with that. You can't deny it. It's documented on these pages.
My main point (although apparently lost in a stupid argument) remains the same. Wrong is wrong. Maybe you were expecting me to make excuses or cover for the Bush Administration. On the contrary, whoever covered tracks or deleted emails is a slimeball, and they know it. I wish there was some way to punish them for it if the accusations are true.
The Federal government is a cesspool. My concern is getting it cleaned up. Don't you want that, even if a non-republican is responsible?
The Federal government is a cesspool. My concern is getting it cleaned up. Don't you want that, even if a non-republican is responsible?
BINGO -- that's one point where party lines blur & everyone becomes Americans
unfortunately, coming with the territory of our well-intended system of government by the people, for the people etc, is massive, built-in inefficiency>gov't waste, that quickly turns into said cesspool that, despite all efforts, has proven too toxic To clean up even as it festers in plain view....just my .02 worth...
The Federal government is a cesspool. My concern is getting it cleaned up. Don't you want that, even if a non-republican is responsible?
So all these endless investigations on officials trying to work in the cesspool are counterproductive then?
I would agree with all of this.
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Sure, but only if they broke a law.
Again, disagree. Just because no laws may have been broken doesn't make something OK. Not by a long shot.
You are saying people who have not broken a law should be prosecuted. Think man!
Big gotcha moment for you? I'll play. What makes you so sure no laws were broken in the first place, in either scenario? There are many differing opinions on that.
In the Comey decision, we learned that negligence no longer matters in a legal case....only intent. It's a whole new world.
[Edited on 9/23/2016 by alloak41]
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Sure, but only if they broke a law.
Again, disagree. Just because no laws may have been broken doesn't make something OK. Not by a long shot.
You are saying people who have not broken a law should be prosecuted. Think man!
Big gotcha moment for you? I'll play. What makes you so sure no laws were broken in the first place, in either scenario? There are many differing opinions on that.
In the Comey decision, we learned that negligence no longer matters in a legal case....only intent. It's a whole new world.
Where did you get your law degree?
It's only a scandal if a Clinton does it.
I don't agree. If someone in the Bush administration mishandled documents in this manner they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Sure, but only if they broke a law.
Again, disagree. Just because no laws may have been broken doesn't make something OK. Not by a long shot.
You are saying people who have not broken a law should be prosecuted. Think man!
Big gotcha moment for you? I'll play. What makes you so sure no laws were broken in the first place, in either scenario? There are many differing opinions on that.
In the Comey decision, we learned that negligence no longer matters in a legal case....only intent. It's a whole new world.
[Edited on 9/23/2016 by alloak41]
Basically in the public sector if there was demonstration of good faith by the employee which would mean that there was no intent then it is not negligence. This is pretty universal.
