4 ms·

The sheer hypocrisy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/hillary-clinton-emails-laptop-thumb-drive-archive-missing https://www.theguardian.com/us-ne

The sheer hypocrisy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/hillary-clinton-emails-laptop-thumb-drive-archive-missing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/hillary-clin... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/05/fbi-no-charges-hillary-clinton-email-investigation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/05/fbi-no-charg... Also: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-dir... "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

Chyzwar 1y ago
Classic whataboutism.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  There's a fine line between whataboutism and precedent.
  - inverted_flag 1y ago
    I look forward to the FBI's thorough investigation of Hegseth then.
    - Sabinus 1y ago
      And Hegseth answering questions before a House committee for 11 hours, like Clinton did.
- TaurenHunter 1y ago
  [flagged]
- daveguy 1y ago
  I prefer the term trumpist douchery.
- afavour 1y ago
  ...no it isn't? Whataboutism is when you redirect attention from issue #1 to unrelated issue #2 in an attempt to change the conversation topic: "forget that, look at this!" OP's comment was pointing out the similarities between issue #1 and issue #2. There's no dismissal.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    The dismissal is implied. And this behavior is endemic in modern reporting and political conversation. Novel idea: what if we focus on the exact issue that was originally brought up? 'Someone else did it, or something like it, sometime, somewhere.' I'm past caring about that -- because it's used too frequently to distract from the current issue. A. Hegseth broke the law and shared classified information on a system that wasn't approved for it. B. Or, he unilaterally declassified operational details without informing anyone or going through a normal process. It can only be one of the two above options, because the facts aren't in question. Edit: But looks like National Security Advisor Mike Waltz will be taking the fall for this: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t
    - pessimizer 1y ago
      > The dismissal is implied. Is it? I'd think that somebody who took Hillary's hidden 3rd party communications seriously would take these seriously too. The bizarre behavior is insisting that what Clinton did was trivial, but that this is a disaster. Also this emphasis on security is backseat driving from a bunch of people who want to attack Iran. The real problem with them using third-party communications is that they avoid FOIA.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        Can you try responding to what Hegseth did without mentioning anyone else? It's a simple ask.
  - wang_li 1y ago
    Whataboutism is when you are trying to show a double standard because person A did a thing that you were upset about and person B did the same thing and you don't care. Asking why you care about a person doing a thing and didn't care when a different person did something different is not whataboutism.
- kacesensitive 1y ago
  It's literally not whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you bring up something about person A, then the only argument against it is something relating to person B. For example, when you point out the call the president made to the secretary of state in Georgia begging him to "find" 11,780 votes. Then, without a great excuse, the other person brings up Biden's mental decline. Both true, both concerning, but the reply just being blatant and desperate misdirection.
- FrustratedMonky 1y ago
  Classic what about, whataboutism, whataboutism.
wheelerwj 1y ago
What she did was wrong. There is no doubt about it. It needed to be investigated and dealt with accordingly. But let’s not pretend that the Secretary of State mishandling classified docs is is at all similar or related to the Secretary of Defense, sharing upcoming attack plans and actively circumventing information security, ESPECIALLY after the outcry and investigation of the Secretary of State. But it’s not hypocritical of our country to want to improve our government officials and not for them to stagnate or slip backwards.
throw0101b 1y ago
> The sheer hypocrisy The Legal Eagle channel did an analysis of the two situations, "Signal War Plans v.s. Hillary's Emails": * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw1tNTIEs-o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw1tNTIEs-o The two situations are not actually (legally) equivalent. One huge difference being that Hesgeth et al are setting communications to auto-delete, which is against records keep statues (there is no evidence Clinton purged e-mails).
zitsarethecure 1y ago
> In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. Hypocrisy indeed.
brownkonas 1y ago
Also: her email was at no time intended for classified materials and would have had all the safeguards that are now being circumvented in place. Every single sender and recipient (excluding bcc) was aware or could have been aware that she was not using a .gov email address and is somewhat complicit or tacitly ok with her using that server. Occasionally previously unclassified materials can later be deemed classified, or there can be a data spill where a sender transmits classified information and recipients need to participate in deletion, investigations, etc. I agree that her using an external server was bad but it was also in plain sight the whole time.

Chyzwar 1y ago

Classic whataboutism.

HPsquared 1y ago
There's a fine line between whataboutism and precedent.
- inverted_flag 1y ago
  I look forward to the FBI's thorough investigation of Hegseth then.
  - Sabinus 1y ago
    And Hegseth answering questions before a House committee for 11 hours, like Clinton did.
TaurenHunter 1y ago
[flagged]
daveguy 1y ago
I prefer the term trumpist douchery.
afavour 1y ago
...no it isn't? Whataboutism is when you redirect attention from issue #1 to unrelated issue #2 in an attempt to change the conversation topic: "forget that, look at this!" OP's comment was pointing out the similarities between issue #1 and issue #2. There's no dismissal.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  The dismissal is implied. And this behavior is endemic in modern reporting and political conversation. Novel idea: what if we focus on the exact issue that was originally brought up? 'Someone else did it, or something like it, sometime, somewhere.' I'm past caring about that -- because it's used too frequently to distract from the current issue. A. Hegseth broke the law and shared classified information on a system that wasn't approved for it. B. Or, he unilaterally declassified operational details without informing anyone or going through a normal process. It can only be one of the two above options, because the facts aren't in question. Edit: But looks like National Security Advisor Mike Waltz will be taking the fall for this: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    > The dismissal is implied. Is it? I'd think that somebody who took Hillary's hidden 3rd party communications seriously would take these seriously too. The bizarre behavior is insisting that what Clinton did was trivial, but that this is a disaster. Also this emphasis on security is backseat driving from a bunch of people who want to attack Iran. The real problem with them using third-party communications is that they avoid FOIA.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      Can you try responding to what Hegseth did without mentioning anyone else? It's a simple ask.
- wang_li 1y ago
  Whataboutism is when you are trying to show a double standard because person A did a thing that you were upset about and person B did the same thing and you don't care. Asking why you care about a person doing a thing and didn't care when a different person did something different is not whataboutism.
kacesensitive 1y ago
It's literally not whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you bring up something about person A, then the only argument against it is something relating to person B. For example, when you point out the call the president made to the secretary of state in Georgia begging him to "find" 11,780 votes. Then, without a great excuse, the other person brings up Biden's mental decline. Both true, both concerning, but the reply just being blatant and desperate misdirection.
FrustratedMonky 1y ago
Classic what about, whataboutism, whataboutism.

wheelerwj 1y ago

What she did was wrong. There is no doubt about it. It needed to be investigated and dealt with accordingly. But let’s not pretend that the Secretary of State mishandling classified docs is is at all similar or related to the Secretary of Defense, sharing upcoming attack plans and actively circumventing information security, ESPECIALLY after the outcry and investigation of the Secretary of State. But it’s not hypocritical of our country to want to improve our government officials and not for them to stagnate or slip backwards.

throw0101b 1y ago

> The sheer hypocrisy The Legal Eagle channel did an analysis of the two situations, "Signal War Plans v.s. Hillary's Emails": * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw1tNTIEs-o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw1tNTIEs-o The two situations are not actually (legally) equivalent. One huge difference being that Hesgeth et al are setting communications to auto-delete, which is against records keep statues (there is no evidence Clinton purged e-mails).

zitsarethecure 1y ago

> In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. Hypocrisy indeed.

brownkonas 1y ago

Also: her email was at no time intended for classified materials and would have had all the safeguards that are now being circumvented in place. Every single sender and recipient (excluding bcc) was aware or could have been aware that she was not using a .gov email address and is somewhat complicit or tacitly ok with her using that server. Occasionally previously unclassified materials can later be deemed classified, or there can be a data spill where a sender transmits classified information and recipients need to participate in deletion, investigations, etc. I agree that her using an external server was bad but it was also in plain sight the whole time.