Is there a double standard for the Clintons but not for Gov. Bush or Sec Powell? What else is new???

[Bill USA]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/05/hillary-clinton-emails-president-clinton-lanny-davis-editorials-debates/24465449/

~~

Fact: Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail account when she was secretary of State was lawful. The law restricting such private accounts by public officials was changed in 2014.

Fact: The 2009 Archives Preservation Law was not violated. Secretary Clinton's e-mails were preserved on the server, regardless of whether it was located at home. More than 50,000 pages had already been turned over. On Wednesday, she asked the State Department to review and release them.

Fact: Thousands of State Department officials and others received e-mails from Secretary Clinton during her tenure, and all knew that she was using a private e-mail address. This flat out contradicts all the baseless innuendo that she was attempting to hide her use of a private e-mail address.

Fact: Secretary Clinton's use of a private e-mail account for both personal and official diplomatic communications was not unprecedented. Former secretary of State Colin Powell has said that his private e-mail account was used for both purposes, too.
(more)

It looks like the GOP's diligent direction of a McCarthyist campaign against HRC is working pretty well. Reading many of the posts here on DU, there appears to be enough people who can be bamboozled into thinking the 'sky is falling' - or in this case, that HRC did something illegal or nefarious. It's also helpful that the GOP toadies of Corp media chant the GOP's battle cry "not trustworthy" and always quote poll numbers in the aggregate, so they don't have to mention that Democrats by and large do not buy the all the innuendos and still know that accusations and innuendos (innuenda?) do not make a person guilty. In this country a person is considered innocent until facts are presented which prove their guilt. Well, it's that way in theory anyway. In the realm of politics that of course is not always the case.

The GOP used the same techniques to rush us into the Neo-Con adventure of the Iraq War. How many people had to face the fact later, that they were totally conned. They're doing the same thing now with regard to HRC. They have no policies, other than sabotage Democracy and dismantle the Government, to offer to voters so they have to use McCarthyism and hope the people are stupid enough to be conned once again. Sometimes looking at how easily people are fooled, I [font size="+1"]almost[/font] can't blame the GOP for their contempt for the 'common' man ( - ALMOST).

[99Forever]

1. Golly.

Another Hillary email thread? Started by one of those meanie Sanders supporters, no doubt....


... oh, wait a minute...


Never mind.

[vadermike]

2. It worked

Wtf do we now? Give up and lose 16? All we have left is Bernie and or Biden. That's what we have left. Ugh. 16 is gonna be ugly

[vadermike]

4. ?

I'm a loyal Dem. I voted Pres O twice !! Just being realistic. If we nominate HRC with those kind of unfavs how would we win??

[Maedhros]

6. Bernie is a far better candidate than either Hillary or Biden

so I feel great about it!

[winter is coming]

7. So, because one of the most corrupt administrations in the history of our country did it, it's okay?

I don't think Lanny's thought this through.

[twii]

8. Was what Rice did corruption?

I didn't know that. Was Powell's private email corruption?

[Bill USA]

15. Bush admin officials told at least 935 lies to rush us into war in Iraq - Center 4 Public Integrity

At least 935 Lies: Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about Saddam Hussein's Iraq

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).
(more)

Now THAT's untrustworthiness!

[twii]

22. I'm talking about the emails

Was what Rice did corruption regarding emails.

[Bill USA]

13. Lanny is pointing out a glaring inconsistency. See: when millions WH emails were lost & M$M Shrugged

FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug

Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush's sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.

The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.

As the Washington Post reported, "Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations." But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.

The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday's Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC's This Week.)

By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton's "email" or "emails" were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage.
(more)

[Bill USA]

17. dont' be a sucker: The real "trust" question is... Who do you trust with 1) your kids futures?...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251630915#post16

[winter is coming]

24. I don't trust the GOP. Then again, I don't trust Hillary, either.

Good thing those aren't the only two options.

[840high]

26. +1

[Snap the Turtle]

9. It was never about her email non-scandal... the fact that Clinton's dropping is she's untrustworthy

and her handling of that said email non-scandal is what's dropping her numbers.

GOP had nothing to do with it. It was all Clinton.

[Snap the Turtle]

21. Whatever. Do you wish to discuss issues and compare our candidates?

[mak3cats]

10. There are several standards at play here:

1. Secretary Powell never ran for President.
2. Jeb Bush used a private server as a governor, not Secretary of State.

That being said, I believe the whole email thing is being blown WAY out of proportion. However, the story keeps changing, and Hillary keep changing right along with it. I support Bernie because he mirrors my ideals, but even if I supported Hillary I would have serious concerns about this issue and what the Republicans are going to do with it.

[dsc]

19. actually his use is worse

First it was explicitly against Florida law. Second, he destroyed his email with no one looking at what should be saved or not.

[Travis_0004]

28. He is not a front runner so people are not interested

Im sure it will come up in the general election if Jeb is still in.

[delrem]

12. Lanny Davis paraphrase: not fair that complete scum get away with it, but not HRC!

My reply:
y'know, Lanny, you're right - complete scum have been getting away with quite literally everything, because they hold the reigns of power, or for the least of them their owners do. They control the lines of communication. But the issue isn't how it isn't fair that some from one faction have gotten away with things while others, belonging to another faction, get called on the carpet for the same things. The issue is one of trust and transparency, and how the people, the voting public, can regain control of the process. Regardless of what faction that this or that shyster (like you, Lanny) is attached to.

There can not be accountability in an office that isn't transparent. Period. If politicians do everything in their power to ensure that their dealings are hidden from the public, except exactly as they and only they control the feed, then the public is fucked. And for the public to go into it and knowingly elect politicians like that -- then the public is self-fucked. Then the public totally deserves it and better bloody well enjoy it, because they have no excuses.

This is basic, Lanny. And of course you know it - it makes up the very air you breathe.

So don't give me your carefully parsed lines about how your employer is treated unfairly, because others have gotten away with the same things. Instead, come up with explanations for how your employer, Hillary Clinton, and her corporate controllers, have actually dealt with *fixing* these problems in the past, and their future plans for *fixing* these problems. You can't, because you, your employer and your employer's corporate controllers MADE the problem in the first place, they did NOTHING to FIX IT, because it SERVES THEIR INTERESTS. So STFU Lanny. Just STFU.

[Bill USA]

16. dont' be a sucker: The real "trust" question is... Who do you trust with 1) your kids futures?...

2) the economy? - avoid another Trickle Down Disaster

3) keeping the World from starting WWIII in the mideast?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251617227

[delrem]

25. I dunno if that link puts forward a very good argument, Bill.

It's just a sequence of photos of scowling R's and smiling D's.
At a partisan R forum the R's would be smiling and the D's scowling. Not the most impressive debating tactic.

Kind of like telling people to STFU and stop thinking, just react to the carefully chosen pictures. Issues don't matter, visuals do. Thought doesn't matter, blinkered partisanship does.

On the issue of trust, is a person who smiles a lot somehow more trustworthy than one who smiles more rarely? Is it more important that a politician get their teeth whitened and capped, and have a personal grooming assistant and other retainers, than it is to have a solid record of trustworthiness in ensuring fairness and transparency and in putting forward plans for a better future for all, ending corporate cronyism ("trickle down&quot , and for bringing about peace to end decades of mindless war?

Well, I can see why some candidates go full monty on being charismatic smilers and on being well funded while avoiding discussion of actual issues.

[Fumesucker]

14. And the Democrats are the ones who made the double standard by accepting Republican sleaze

Of course the Democrats expected the Republicans to return the favor and not say anything when Democrats do unethical stuff.

It's like a certain candidate never heard the words "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and it never occurred to them that Republicans might raise a stink when Democrats did things they themselves were doing.

I used to think Hannity using Alan Colmes as a stand in for all Democrats was unfair, now I think Colmes perfectly fits the Democratic party.

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. (hands on hips...) Well, the GOP did it too!

I chewed on it for a while... had to spit it out.


Ya got any other bullshit justifications?

[840high]

27. heehee - give them time

[reddread]

20. ordinary bedfellows

[twii]

29. Did Powell and rice break the law regarding emails?

?

[reddread]

31. they all supported illegally invading Iraq under the falsest of pretenses

who gives a goddamn about emails?

[twii]

32. Emails is what we are discussing in this thread

Are you OK? The Iraw War is not the email server issue. Be logical.

[reddread]

34. sure, pass on the war crimes, ZOMG the email scandal!

logic?

[Motown_Johnny]

23. Please stop lying about this. Powell had a government account too.

I am sorry to use such a strong word, but this has been going on for months now and what you claim simply is not true. If you can't defend Sec. Clinton's actions by telling the truth then you should not be defending her.

Please, just tell the truth about this. The more the record needs to be corrected the longer the story lasts.


Here is a link to a recent interview with Sec. Powell where he explains that he had 2 email accounts. Exactly what Sec. Clinton now admits she should have done. The entire interview is there so you can't accuse me of taking his statement out of context. The stuff about the emails come up just after the 15:00 mark.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-interview--colin-powell-talks-iran-deal--isis-and-more-on-mtp-520301123989


Here is a link to the transcript if you would rather read it

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-september-6-2015-n422606


^snip^


CHUCK TODD:

Your name gets invoked a lot during this email controversy. Once and for all, can you explain what you did with your emails as secretary of state?

COLIN POWELL:

You can read my book. I wrote a whole chapter about what I did in my latest book. It Worked for Me, Harper Collins, you can buy it on Amazon. But the point is I arrived at the State Department as secretary with a disastrous information system there. And I had to fix it. And so what I had to do is bring the State Department to the 21st century.

And the way of doing that was getting new computers. That gave them access to the whole world. And then in order to make sure that I changed the brainware of the department, and not just the software and hardware, I started to use email. I had two machines on my desk. I had a secure State Department machine, which I used for secure material, and I had a laptop that I could use for email.

And I would email relatives, friends, but I would also email in the department. But it was mostly housekeeping stuff. "What's the status in this paper? What's going on here?" So it was my own classified system, but I had a classified system also on my desk.




P.S. Bush only had Florida state business in his emails. What are you worried about? Someone might hack in and find out about the schedule for the repair on an I-75 off ramp?

[Capt. Obvious]

30. Looks like the alert stalkers silenced you

Alert Truthers can't be ignored forever.

[Gothmog]

33. The double standard exists and needs to be called out