[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.

[inverted_flag]

I look forward to the FBI's thorough investigation of Hegseth then.

[Sabinus]

And Hegseth answering questions before a House committee for 11 hours, like Clinton did.

[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.

[wang_li]

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.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I agree with the GP on the definition of whataboutism, and think that you have described something with a much older term: "pointing out the hypocrisy".

They both share in common that rather than continuing to talk about just one thing, you are now talking about (at least) two.

But whataboutism is a diversion tactic that tries to shift the attention from behavior/event A to behavior/event B; pointing out the hypocrisy notes the similarities between behaviors/events A and B and contrasts the response.

Both can be deployed in similar situations, but the motivations for choosing one over the other are substantially different.

[Chyzwar]

OP did not state his motivation, leaving it for open interpretation.

[TaurenHunter]

You are responsible for your own interpretation/distortion.

[CGMthrowaway]

Is a double standard good or bad?

[Chyzwar]

  > The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Both Clintons private email server, Pete signal chats and Trump documents stash in Mar-a-lago are equally bad. Lack of consequences signal erosion of “Law and order” in the US. It seems that US is now not different from third rate countries where last minute exceptions, insider trading, open bribery, secret police(ICE) and targeted prosecution is a new norm.

[comfysocks]

I agree that all three are bad and shouldn’t be tolerated.

However, Hegseth’s transgression was the worst in terms of severity by orders of magnitude. Details of an in-progress military operation and all.

[Chyzwar]

We do not know. We do not know what documents Trump had in Mar-a-lago, who had access to them, and what he shared with others. Furthermore, we do not know what was in Clintons emails and who read them. If anything, Hegseth’s is less damming, since we know the content of chat and participants. In both Clintons and Trump cases, the impact could be much bigger. The problem in all cases is lack of accountability.

[afavour]

> If anything, Hegseth’s is less damming, since we know the content of chat and participants

That at least is surely not true. We know the contents because his attention to security was even less than the others we've heard about.

[ethbr1]

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

[pessimizer]

> 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]

Can you try responding to what Hegseth did without mentioning anyone else?

It's a simple ask.