Tell me concisely the difference between the Bush emails and the HRC emails?

[grasswire]

We must assume that the RNC had professionals doing IT.

And can we assume that no national secrets of foreign policy were being transmitted on an unsecure server?

Please expand if you can. Thanks.

[leveymg]

1. The Statute of Limitations.

No acts committed, other than murder or treason*, related to them prior to May 27, 2006 can ever be prosecuted.

(*Actually, there are a few more: Sex offenses with minors, crimes of violence, kidnapping, arson, and forgery)

[hollysmom]

2. None of the Bush people ran for further office

Democrats keep thinking it is not a good idea to go after previous administrations.
Running the records through the RNC was very very bad though. Violating the FOIA all over the place.
But now you have to wonder where Clinton would run her e-mails through as presidents since she made a precedent of rules do not apply to her and security be damned with the blackberry.

[SheilaT]

3. Hillary flat-out lied over and over

about her emails and the server. Plus, she did something she was explicitly told not to do.

The Bushies were at least honest about why they used the RNC server.

Hillary supporters keep on promoting her as the best and the most experienced candidate ever. Not to mention she's a female, which is really 95% of why they support her, although they try to pretend otherwise. She's got lots of experience for sure, but clearly very little good judgement.

[grasswire]

4. So the response to the proliferating talking point..

...that HRC's use of emails was no different from GWB etc., should properly be...

1. They should have been prosecuted, but the statute of limitations long has passed.

2. We will never know if national secrets were transmitted then in ways that were criminal, but we do know that now, of HRC's use.

3. Apples and oranges?

I'm trying to make it as compelling as possible while also being factually correct.

[grasswire]

5. 4. No other Secretary of State has refused....

...to be interviewed by the Inspector General.

[Bob41213]

6. I think it's similar and probably HRCs inspiration. I don't recall specifics that well...

So I looked at Wikipedia briefly but it lacks a lot of details. This is kinda verbose--sorry.

I assume it was professionally administered. Almost certainly they paid big bucks for admin because this was a much larger scale. This was essentially the RNC running an email operation. One doesn't know if they owned the server or if they just rented it. They probably owned it and housed it in some data center and had a tech company run it but who knows at this point.

So it seems like the goal may have been the same but more effective. The more people you can get on a server communicating directly, the less of a paper trail there is. When you start emailing off the server, then there are always records on the receiving end. But if two people on the same server email each other, you control all records. I *assume* this was an RNC server that had virtual domains for various other domains (like gwb43). So GWB was essentially using the RNC server.

The claimed point was to separate work and "non-work" emails which of course is fine. I think they had ".gov" accounts too, but I don't recall anymore. It's fairly clear that they were avoiding transparency as well. And then when people wanted copies of the emails, someone "accidentally" deleted them. I'm not sure how much was intentional and how much was lazy. In other words, when you have two emails you're probably going to mix things between the two. It just happens. But how much was intentionally "use this email address so no one sees the stuff" and how much was stuff getting mixed between the two is up for debate.

I'd assume you had some classified materials there (classified and secret). I don't see how some couldn't get there. But I kinda think the copies of top secret briefings word for word off the classified networks were not.

So it looks to me like it was very similar but professional. You can give them the benefit of the doubt on classified I think. And so it becomes a FOIA issue which is essentially non-prosecutable.

[grasswire]

7. thanks for your input.