their documents and not allow them to 'purchase their state-issued hard drives' (or computers).

Every Congressperson and their staff, every governor, etc.


NONE of them should be destroying any document they ever created that relates to any work they did while in office.

(Edit: or doing work from personal accounts or machines unless they intend to also turn over those machines each time their term of office expires or is renewed.)

I thought that strengthened the question you pose.
Maybe it needs more & right that it should.

The problem is that Congress is not covered by any such laws now, and will no doubt fight any attempt to cover themselves tooth and nail. That's the problem with a body that writes the laws for itself as well as everyone else. It would probably take a major referendum campaign in each state to start with, to cover state officials, and then a national campaign once enough states were onboard.

bestowed upon themselves and long forgotten what the place in government is.

Maybe they scrubbed that part from the daily MSM howling also.

The Hillary haters around here show no shame in doing the rights dirty work for them.

Name even one poster who has actually said it's all right for Romney to do so?

Apart from 'Name Removed'. I bet he's the kind of guy who would say that.

Good

and many of us DID say that was wrong. Rather the double standard may go the other way - accepting in a Democrat, what they reject in a Republican.

It would be great if the result of it was a decision to relook at guidelines and laws and change them to lead to government records being considered Government records and reasonable laws on retaining documents be enforced. That this NEVER has been a result, one could wonder if there is more commonality between legislators/administrators in protecting themselves than a commitment to allowing oversight.

our party shouldn't use him as a standard of behavior.

Bet if we took a look there'd be a long & growing list of such hypocrits.

But why are you willing to give him a free pass for his actions in concealing his records as governor. He was also a presidential candidate and that kind of logic can only help Hilary's opposition. Have you considered that?

in a just world Romney would already be serving a long-term prison sentence

There was a lot of noise about this after he did it, and nobody was condoning it.

I've asked about Romney destroying hard drives several times. The strategy from my RW friends just tends to be ignore it.

They are low intelligence bots of the Right.
Just like the KKKristisn fundies.

I am wondering that myself. I guess if you are against Hilary you are for republicans

It's OK if you are republican

It's OK if you are Romney


same thing


Lawrence O'Donnell did the right thing last night jumping on whatshername, because we hold ourselves to a standard, doesnt have to be a higher standard as GOP holds themselves to no standard.

Hillary fucked up by not adopting the new rules in her dept, it seems.

Admit it, apologize, say it wont happen again, and move on.

wrongs make a right?

I find it interesting that no one in the MSM has said anything about what Condi Rice used for her emails.

Why is she never mentioned? Colin Powell has been mentioned and others.

I thought it was disgusting when Romney did it (his was even worse for destroying records). I think Palin did this shit, too (using her personal e-mail instead of government one for official business). I think we should call them all on it. Including Hillary. But I'm not ready to say that this is disqualifying, given that there's a lot of similar stuff going on at all levels. I say put firm rules in place and hold them all to it. (That said, I can imagine at least some cases where Secretary of State and President correspondence needs to especially secure.)

or even "in accordance with publicly stated policy/not in accord with publicly stated policy."

They can be three radically different things, and that leads to three radically different ways of evaluating Romney and Clinton's behavior.

I'm unaware of anybody saying what Romney did was illegal (years ago, when laws were different, and before Obama was elected and Clinton appointed). The legality itself seems to be some of the debate concerning Clinton.

Then there's what Obama said about transparency and such. That's executive policy, and what his policies were and what Romney's policies were probably differed a bit. And to some extent each should be held separately to what he said, and not some unofficial policy imposed by outsiders years after the fact.

Then there's "right" versus "wrong," and that's the hardest nut to crack, since every group's predisposed to view what the other side does as inherently wrong and to find justifications for what members of their own group does. If Romney and Clinton did precisely the same thing, there'd still be those saying Romney was wrong and Clinton right. Or those saying Clinton was wrong and Romney was right (which is exactly one poster's views, upthread). The problem is in defining "right" and "wrong"--and only then getting around excuses to apply the definitions evenhandedly.

No one ever made him account for those records. Cheney never even faced a serious congressional inquiry.