3 ms·

Oh, like Colin Powell and aides of Condoleezza Rice?

by mej10 10y ago

mladenkovacevic 10y ago
Is this the best defense available? Republicans do it too so let's just look the other way. I understand somebody being paid by the Democratic party or one of Hillary's SuperPACs to try to push this argument, but for a regular citizen to attempt it shows just how successful the suggested partisanship of the US political system is in dividing regular citizens to act against their own best interests.
- epistasis 10y ago
  If somebody says "it is obvious that this is illegal and the person should be in jail," and then somebody else says "well all these other people did it and they we're scrutinized for it but didn't go to jail," then perhaps the reasonable thing to conclude is that it is not an act that somebody should go to jail for. I mean, that's the only thing I can conclude. If you're assuming a priori that there's a crime, then you're putting the cart before the horse. When you're assuming that counter points can only come from some sort of paid posters, you're being disrepectful. This is why political topics are bad in HN. There's no news for nerds in here, just lots of people playing fast and loose with the facts to score political points.
  - mladenkovacevic 10y ago
    then perhaps the reasonable thing to conclude is that it is not an act that somebody should go to jail for. I mean, that's the only thing I can conclude. If that's the only thing you can conclude than you're choosing to ignore circumstances and the complexity of real life situations. I am arguing that both Bush/Powell and Clinton's misuse of personal email servers should be investigated to the fullest extent and prosecuted without considerations for protection of reputations of those individuals. Any ordinary citizen trying to wiggle credible-sounding arguments for the other side is working against their own interest (unless they are being paid - which I am not accusing anyone of).
- mikestew 10y ago
  Is this the best defense available? It's not a defense, it's a counter to the idea that "if anyone else did this, they'd be fired and charged". Obviously that's not true, because (as noted in the comment to which you replied) others did it and no one was fired or went to jail.
  - mladenkovacevic 10y ago
    If the OP meant that Hillary being a democrat is somehow uniquely protected from any prosecution then I agree that it is the other side of the coin of polarization of political opinion that divides the ordinary citizens and makes them weaker. But Powell and Rice, occupying the same level of power as Clinton during her term, I understood it as a condemnation of the privileges of political power in general and not a privilege of a particular political party.
Mendenhall 10y ago
No they both had a .gov address, Hillary never did. That is a huge difference. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
- epistasis 10y ago
  It does seem like it might be worse that they would use their private address even when they had a .gov, because it's more clearly a distinction. But in the end the effect is the same, if it were additional malfeasance than there would be some evidence of selection of particular topics to go off the .gov address. Not really sure what the huge difference is in this case.
  - Mendenhall 10y ago
    Very huge, that means unlike the others she had NO WAY to access the .gov through an official account unlike Powell etc, And private emails by law must have been kept at the time of her tenure. "Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working. “I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013. Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so."
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      > Very huge, that means unlike the others she had NO WAY to access the .gov through an official account unlike Powell etc That is pretty much the most minor and least relevant issue with Clinton's case.
brandonmenc 10y ago
Powell and Rice did not operate their own unsecured private email servers.

Oh, like Colin Powell and aides of Condoleezza Rice?

by mej10 10y ago

Oh, like Colin Powell and aides of Condoleezza Rice?

Is this the best defense available? Republicans do it too so let's just look the other way. I understand somebody being paid by the Democratic party or one of Hillary's SuperPACs to try to push this argument, but for a regular citizen to attempt it shows just how successful the suggested partisanship of the US political system is in dividing regular citizens to act against their own best interests.

epistasis 10y ago
If somebody says "it is obvious that this is illegal and the person should be in jail," and then somebody else says "well all these other people did it and they we're scrutinized for it but didn't go to jail," then perhaps the reasonable thing to conclude is that it is not an act that somebody should go to jail for. I mean, that's the only thing I can conclude. If you're assuming a priori that there's a crime, then you're putting the cart before the horse. When you're assuming that counter points can only come from some sort of paid posters, you're being disrepectful. This is why political topics are bad in HN. There's no news for nerds in here, just lots of people playing fast and loose with the facts to score political points.
- mladenkovacevic 10y ago
  then perhaps the reasonable thing to conclude is that it is not an act that somebody should go to jail for. I mean, that's the only thing I can conclude. If that's the only thing you can conclude than you're choosing to ignore circumstances and the complexity of real life situations. I am arguing that both Bush/Powell and Clinton's misuse of personal email servers should be investigated to the fullest extent and prosecuted without considerations for protection of reputations of those individuals. Any ordinary citizen trying to wiggle credible-sounding arguments for the other side is working against their own interest (unless they are being paid - which I am not accusing anyone of).
mikestew 10y ago
Is this the best defense available? It's not a defense, it's a counter to the idea that "if anyone else did this, they'd be fired and charged". Obviously that's not true, because (as noted in the comment to which you replied) others did it and no one was fired or went to jail.
- mladenkovacevic 10y ago
  If the OP meant that Hillary being a democrat is somehow uniquely protected from any prosecution then I agree that it is the other side of the coin of polarization of political opinion that divides the ordinary citizens and makes them weaker. But Powell and Rice, occupying the same level of power as Clinton during her term, I understood it as a condemnation of the privileges of political power in general and not a privilege of a particular political party.

Mendenhall 10y ago

No they both had a .gov address, Hillary never did. That is a huge difference. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...

epistasis 10y ago
It does seem like it might be worse that they would use their private address even when they had a .gov, because it's more clearly a distinction. But in the end the effect is the same, if it were additional malfeasance than there would be some evidence of selection of particular topics to go off the .gov address. Not really sure what the huge difference is in this case.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  Very huge, that means unlike the others she had NO WAY to access the .gov through an official account unlike Powell etc, And private emails by law must have been kept at the time of her tenure. "Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working. “I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013. Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so."
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > Very huge, that means unlike the others she had NO WAY to access the .gov through an official account unlike Powell etc That is pretty much the most minor and least relevant issue with Clinton's case.

brandonmenc 10y ago

Powell and Rice did not operate their own unsecured private email servers.