[TaurenHunter]

The sheer hypocrisy

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/hillary-clin...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/05/fbi-no-charg...

Also:

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."

[wheelerwj]

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]

> 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

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).

[brownkonas]

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.

[zitsarethecure]

> 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.

[Chyzwar]

Classic whataboutism.

[kacesensitive]

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.

[HPsquared]

There's a fine line between whataboutism and precedent.

[FrustratedMonky]

Classic what about, whataboutism, whataboutism.

[daveguy]

I prefer the term trumpist douchery.

[afavour]

...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.