[logifail]

> First, official communications [..]

Unfortunately the list of politicians who either don't care about records of their communications being properly kept, or who went out of their way to keep their comms "off the books" is long.

We should want to hold all of them to account, not just this one.

[JumpCrisscross]

> We should want to hold all of them to account, not just this one

We should and do. FBI investigated Clinton because of her emails.

[logifail]

> FBI investigated Clinton because of her emails.

Correct, and this was the outcome:

[FBI director James Comey said] "Clinton had been 'extremely careless' but recommended that no charges be filed because Clinton did not act with criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecution"

Is '[not] acting with criminal intent' really the standard we think we want to hold our elected officials to?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Is '[not] acting with criminal intent' really the standard we think we want to hold our elected officials to?

Yes, mens rea is a deeply-precedented standard that's a good default.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

[logifail]

> Yes, mens rea is a deeply-precedented standard that's a good default

(From the other side the pond) it does seem that legal standards such that one are applied very selectively in the USA, apparently depending heavily on the political leanings of those involved in any (potential) case.

On the other hand, at least you do actually run elections to pick your POTUS, this side of the Atlantic we get the President of the European Commission based on a back-room deal and a Soviet-style "vote" in the Parliament with no choice. To top it off, when she first got the job in 2019, VdL wasn't even a candidate for it during the immediately preceeding European elections.

[logifail]

> We should and do

The European Commission ended up in court trying to keep Ursula von der Leyen's messages secret 'claiming that the texts were “by [their] nature short-lived” and were not covered by the EU’s freedom of information law'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/10/i-aske...

https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-eu-comm...

Outcome? A(nother) nothingburger.

[JumpCrisscross]

> European Commission ended up in court trying to keep Ursula von der Leyen's messages secret 'claiming that the texts were “by [their] nature short-lived” and were not covered by the EU’s freedom of information law'

Sure. They still wound up in court. Hegseth hasn't had to go to court to defend himself because he hasn't even been investigated. You really have to go back to the Austro-Hungarian Empire to find these levels of exploitable ineptitude at the highest ranks of a major military structure.

[logifail]

> Sure. They still wound up in court.

That case was brought by the New York Times, not any oversight body or investigative function of the EU, which makes it even more cringe-worthy.

"The European Commission faced an embarrassing grilling for almost five hours on Friday as top EU judges cast doubt on the executive’s commitment to transparency on the Covid-19 vaccine negotiations. The EU institution defended itself in a packed EU court in Luxembourg in the so-called Pfizergate case, brought by the New York Times and its former Brussels bureau chief Matina Stevis-Gridneff."

The NYT is presumably welcome to try to take Hegseth to court?

[JumpCrisscross]

> The NYT is presumably welcome to try to take Hegseth to court?

The Times sued to get Von der Leyen to share information. Hegseth already does that because he's an idiot. To my knowledge, SecDef isn't subject to FOIA in a meaningful way.

[logifail]

> The Times sued to get Von der Leyen to share information

...and failed

> To my knowledge, SecDef isn't subject to FOIA in a meaningful way

...and as it turned out, neither is VdL.