You're ignoring details and nuance that make a significant difference.
Those details and nuanced issues are meaningful.
That's not to say there aren't issues (on all sides) with the handling of government documents. There definitely are. But in the specific cases you mentioned, you ignore the details.
Are you unaware of those details (if so, please educate yourself. You'll be glad you did) or are you (I'm not claiming that you are, but it's a plausible scenario) intentionally obscuring them?
And you're ignoring relevant facts and replying with copypasta. If you have an argument to make based on the facts, don't gesture at where the argument might be, just make it.
>And you're ignoring relevant facts and replying with copypasta.
Which relevant facts and from where, exactly do you think I copy/pasted what I wrote?
>If you have an argument to make based on the facts, don't gesture at where the argument might be, just make it.
That's exactly what I did. You (essentially) asserted that the issues/backstory surrounding both sets of presidential records are exactly the same.
They are not. One person (well, a bunch of folks actually) blatantly lied about inappropriately having such documents and ignored subpoenas for such documents.
Another (again, a bunch of folks) immediately notified the relevant folks and returned them (National Archives) when such documents were discovered without being asked or issued subpoenas to do so.
While both situations are both disappointing and disturbing, they are very different scenarios.
You ignored that nuance. And that was my "argument" and is based in fact. What I want to know is why you ignored the nuance? Facts matter.
I'll add that all public officials (regardless of partisan affiliation) should be held to a higher standard than everyone else.
This (mostly) hasn't been done because those with a partisan agenda defend their own and only attack their perceived "adversaries." That's wrong, regardless of who does it.
> While both situations are both disappointing and disturbing, they are very different scenarios.
I am always amazed about how much mental gymnastics people are willing to do so they can defend their favorite side. Both situations are very similar, they are both "disappointing and disturbing". Viewing as someone who doesn't care about defending any side, these so-called nuances don't change anything.
If you want to ignore the law, then your assertion has merit.
I'm not defending anyone. Rather, I'm merely pointing out that ignoring nuance and details is a mistake.
Then again, if you view the world through the lens of self-serving PR and ignore the details (as well as the relevant laws), I can see why you came to that conclusion.
And you're not alone. Many folks form their understanding of current events based on the opinions and assertions of those with an agenda. That's a mistake.
Facts matter. Timelines matter. And all of those who are supposed to serve us (regardless of ideology/partisan affiliation) should be held to account for their actions.
That's not a partisan take, rather it's rooted in the idea that we are a nation of laws, and all who are within the borders of the nation are subject to those laws. No exceptions. There's also a lot of nuance in that too, but if we abandon that concept, we're just a mob.
Those details and nuanced issues are meaningful.
That's not to say there aren't issues (on all sides) with the handling of government documents. There definitely are. But in the specific cases you mentioned, you ignore the details.
Are you unaware of those details (if so, please educate yourself. You'll be glad you did) or are you (I'm not claiming that you are, but it's a plausible scenario) intentionally obscuring them?