4 ms·

But you need to compare comparable things. Those whatabout arguments are almost always based on very superficial similarity - it "looks" to be the same thing,

by aredox 2y ago

But you need to compare comparable things. Those whatabout arguments are almost always based on very superficial similarity - it "looks" to be the same thing, when those are by nature profundly different.

_heimdall 2y ago
For sure, the approach can often be used to make logical comparisons where they aren't really equivalent. The Hillary Clinton email server situation feels very similar to this Signal thread issue to me though. Both involved government officials using unofficial forms of communication for official work, likely confidential work in both cases. I say likely because this one seems like it would have been classified if reviewed, and for Hillary we just don't know what was on the email server and I don't know of a public report that investigated communications that involved both her server and official servers.
- acdha 2y ago
  For Hillary, we do know. Her server was not in violation of policy at the time for unclassified data - the policies were strengthened later – and she did not intentionally store classified data there. The FBI said nothing was classified at the time after their investigation but identified a hundred emails which should have been: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08/hillary-clintons-claim-that-zero-emails-were-marked-classified/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08/hillary-c... In this case, I think the difference is intent and ambiguity. This information was clearly known to be classified (remember last week when they were arguing that the flight details of immigrant deportations were classified and couldn’t be shared with a federal judge? Kinda hard to say information about military strikes which haven’t happened yet is less sensitive.) and it’s clearly something at the level to qualify as a federal record, but they don’t show any signs of having stored a copy.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > she did not intentionally store classified data there Intent is always hard to prove. Either someone has to admit they intended to break the law, or they had to make the mistake of creating evidence that makes the intent clear (like writing it down or saying it to a witness who can be compelled to testify). It is likely a realistic legal loophole that the documents stored weren't already classified, though that is gray area enough that it could very well come down to a judge's determination of whether to consider the letter of the law or the intent of the law. All that said, my original point was simply that I find it important to understand why someone reaches for a "what about..." type argument. I see a lot of people hold inconsistent ideals depending on the context, and I meet very few people who seem to be principled in how they think through tough topics.
    - acdha 2y ago
      > Intent is always hard to prove They found her telling people not to use it for classified information. The items which were there were not marked as classified at the time. That’s a contrast to creating a group for the stated purpose of talking about a classified operation and enabling automatic message deletion (records laws mean they’re supposed to review before deleting).
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        You're leveraging the benefit of years of time with one case and comparing against the other after only a day or two. We don't know what will be known with the benefit of time here, judging a comparison here needs to use a similar timeline. A few days after the email server situation leaked we were seeing a very similar situation to today. One party either denied it happened, refused to answer, or claimed nothing classified was shared on an insecure channel. Hilary did this and it turns out they found nothing shared was technically classified but upon further inspection it should have been. Trump and his people are similarly claiming nothing classified was shared, that may turn out to be false of it may turn out to technically be true only because it hadn't been officially reviewed yet, we simply don't know yet. Are those two situations so dissimilar that, in your opinion, it still falls into the whataboutism bucket? To me they aren't, though that's also fairly uncommon as many times I see "what about..." claims they aren't easily comparable and are more of a distraction or grasping at tribalistic straws.

by aredox 2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago

For sure, the approach can often be used to make logical comparisons where they aren't really equivalent. The Hillary Clinton email server situation feels very similar to this Signal thread issue to me though. Both involved government officials using unofficial forms of communication for official work, likely confidential work in both cases. I say likely because this one seems like it would have been classified if reviewed, and for Hillary we just don't know what was on the email server and I don't know of a public report that investigated communications that involved both her server and official servers.

acdha 2y ago
For Hillary, we do know. Her server was not in violation of policy at the time for unclassified data - the policies were strengthened later – and she did not intentionally store classified data there. The FBI said nothing was classified at the time after their investigation but identified a hundred emails which should have been: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08/hillary-clintons-claim-that-zero-emails-were-marked-classified/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08/hillary-c... In this case, I think the difference is intent and ambiguity. This information was clearly known to be classified (remember last week when they were arguing that the flight details of immigrant deportations were classified and couldn’t be shared with a federal judge? Kinda hard to say information about military strikes which haven’t happened yet is less sensitive.) and it’s clearly something at the level to qualify as a federal record, but they don’t show any signs of having stored a copy.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > she did not intentionally store classified data there Intent is always hard to prove. Either someone has to admit they intended to break the law, or they had to make the mistake of creating evidence that makes the intent clear (like writing it down or saying it to a witness who can be compelled to testify). It is likely a realistic legal loophole that the documents stored weren't already classified, though that is gray area enough that it could very well come down to a judge's determination of whether to consider the letter of the law or the intent of the law. All that said, my original point was simply that I find it important to understand why someone reaches for a "what about..." type argument. I see a lot of people hold inconsistent ideals depending on the context, and I meet very few people who seem to be principled in how they think through tough topics.
  - acdha 2y ago
    > Intent is always hard to prove They found her telling people not to use it for classified information. The items which were there were not marked as classified at the time. That’s a contrast to creating a group for the stated purpose of talking about a classified operation and enabling automatic message deletion (records laws mean they’re supposed to review before deleting).
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      You're leveraging the benefit of years of time with one case and comparing against the other after only a day or two. We don't know what will be known with the benefit of time here, judging a comparison here needs to use a similar timeline. A few days after the email server situation leaked we were seeing a very similar situation to today. One party either denied it happened, refused to answer, or claimed nothing classified was shared on an insecure channel. Hilary did this and it turns out they found nothing shared was technically classified but upon further inspection it should have been. Trump and his people are similarly claiming nothing classified was shared, that may turn out to be false of it may turn out to technically be true only because it hadn't been officially reviewed yet, we simply don't know yet. Are those two situations so dissimilar that, in your opinion, it still falls into the whataboutism bucket? To me they aren't, though that's also fairly uncommon as many times I see "what about..." claims they aren't easily comparable and are more of a distraction or grasping at tribalistic straws.