And it's not supposed to matter if you're a former Secretary of State, or a Senator, or a janitor, or a former gang member with half a dozen felony convictions.
There's a phrase for this very process in government: Litigation Hold.
When Congress or a court litigating a lawsuit issues a warrant or a subpoena, the whole system in which the data exists is frozen. Period. Every document, email, memo, system eventlog down to when the machines were patched, and who last launched a web browser from them. And from that point forward any person who so much as logs in to the system to look has to be specifically and separately cataloged and the event recorded to ensure the highest levels of "chain of custody" which are then provided to the requesting body. This is to ensure that no evidence is being tampered with, and any data there is later determined to be relevant by the officials doing the data search. You often cant even add data to the machine after the fact, depending on the severity of the case. .
Here's that link from the article again...
So which is it? The USDA and UN are just as unreliable as Stats Canada and the Daily caller, and the NYT is the pinnacle of non-partisan reporting, or...
Hell, even if the Obama administration were to prosecute or less likely convict Clinton, Obama would probably pardon her. I dont know if that's more or less sad that that the media would dismiss it, and that millions of intellectually lazy would still be happy to vote for her.
She also served successfully as secretary of state in an essentially scandal free administration, no matter how much republicans wish it were otherwise.
It's a shame that there's a cult of personality rather than an intellectually honest evaluation of performance.
See, this is precisely why you have such resistance. For people like you it's not about a logical progression of technology, or a measured response to possible or even likely impacts, You behave as though you have the one single whole and true answer, and that anyone who deviates from your position by even 5 degrees is a flat-earther who obviously eats babies for sport. You come across as a cultist zealot rather than an even marginally reasonable person, and it does far more harm to your cause than good.
Step 2: Break out the marshmallows.
What's being argued, right now, is that we don't have a sufficient grasp on the technology, or a suitably unified scientific/sociopolitical agenda.
We dont even have a sufficient grasp of what is happening, what the true root causes are and what percentage of impact each has, or to what degree the global ecosystem is able to offset the impacts. How the hell do you build a "solution" to a problem you cant even fully quantify?
Arent people getting tired of these egocentric asshats that he repeatedly tell us, "Well, yeah, we were wrong about that. And that, and that,
No matter what spin you put on it, the statement pronounces that there are those in power who are allowed to be a part of the process, and the rest of us just need to shut up and be told what's good for us.
Tell me some other way to interpret it.
And a google search on "Bush stupid" really does return fifty-two million, eight hundred thousand results.
That doesn't prove that the Bush's are actually any more stupid that any number of Democrats. It just proves the press gets a stiffy every time they get a whiff of another Republican foible they can beat to death.
Conversely, if you google actual stupid shit said by Democrats (like the one in my sig...) the vast majority of hits you'll see are explanations about how it was taken out of context, how it was just a honest slip, or how it's a trumped up scandal. The Vice President can suggest firing off a few shotgun blasts from your porch to ward off intruders, and that's fine. The President can suggest he's been to all 57 states, and that's just fine. But if a Republican says something dumb, you'd think they just punched a preschooler.