I agree that covering stuff up doesn't suddenly become ok just because my preferred candidate does it, I wont defend them (and there were a few points in the campaign where I was ready to drop them entirely because it looked like they were going to sell us out, but they haven't so far). However, comparing this to Clinton's situation is an exaggeration of what Pence has done, and a serious oversimplification of what amounts to the culmination of Cinton's political career.

See if we look at what Pence is being accused with:

Quote

Pence hired Indianapolis law firm Barnes & Thornburg to join the Texas litigation. A representative from the firm — which is also representing Pence in this case — did not respond to IndyStar requests for interview.

In December 2014, Groth requested information regarding Pence's decision to hire outside counsel and the cost to Indiana taxpayers.

"I think joining the lawsuit without the attorney general and hiring that firm was a waste of taxpayer dollars and the people have the right to know how much of their money was spent,” Groth said. Groth is known in Indiana for representing the plaintiffs in the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court voter identification case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

Pence produced the documents in the request “but those documents included substantial redaction,” according to court documents.

So Pence got buttmad about Obama's immigration policy and hired some people to argue against it in court. The 'scandal' is that he did this on taxpayer dollars and didn't reveal how much it cost. You could argue that he shouldn't have tried to battle with Obama and that it was a waste from the start, or that he was incompetent with how he handled the case, or that his precedent of fudging numbers gives reason to be concerned (although it sort of worked out alright in the end). Now the problem is that none of those are anywhere near level of what Clinton did both in terms of how many things went wrong, and the scale of what did. A short bullet point list is:
-knowing that US ally Saudi Arabia is funding US enemy ISIS, and not telling anyone in government
-knowing the above, and telling bankers
-giving the saudis weapons despite knowing it will be given in part to ISIS (this is a serious crime under the patriot act btw)
-taking money from Saudi Arabia and other dubious states in the form of donations to the Clinton foundation
-giving out government ambassadorships to donators of the clinton foundation
-giving private speeches to clinton foundation donators, to whom she discloses her private positions
-giving classified information to her daughter (who has no security clearance)
-giving classified information to her maid (who has no security clearance)
-storing classified information on a server so insecure that up to five different security agencies from other countries were able to hack in
-and doing everything I mentioned before to cover it up

Spoiler

bite me for not sourcing everything there, you know where to look

This is in comparison to Pence potentially misspending money and then redacting how much he spent, it's bad but not in anyway comparable.

But legal experts fear the stakes may be much higher than mere politics because the decision could remove a judicial branch check on executive power and limit a citizen's right to know what the government is doing and how it spends taxpayer dollars.

"It comes down to this — the court is giving up its ability to check another branch of government, and that should worry people," said Gerry Lanosga, an Indiana University media professor specializing in public records law.

Now if only the same thing could happen to people who pirate games in general.

Quote from: Azendac on November 16, 2016, 12:17:09 AM

destroying evidence in an FBI investigation

Lol was this the one that was leaked by the FSB proxy LemmyWinks?

Quote from: Azendac on November 16, 2016, 12:17:09 AM

Let's not pretend that handing in a redacted email is anywhere near the same as dodging a subpoena, destroying evidence in an FBI investigation, using a private server to avoid FOIA requests, and doing it all to cover up your connections to bankers to whom you tell your "private positions" to.

I never did. Dodging a state transparency law and hiring a private attorney on the taxpayers' dollar isn't the high crime Clinton committed, but it's not exactly setting a good example either.

Let's not pretend that handing in a redacted email is anywhere near the same as dodging a subpoena, destroying evidence in an FBI investigation, using a private server to avoid FOIA requests, and doing it all to cover up your connections to bankers to whom you tell your "private positions" to.

What's Mike Pence hiding in his emails?

Fatima Hussein, IndyStar 3:03 p.m. EST November 14, 2016

Mike Pence wants his communications limited from public access. Experts say this sets a "dangerous precedent."

Now that the presidential campaign and most of the furor over Hillary Clinton's email scandal are behind us, the Pence administration is going to court to argue for its own brand of email secrecy.

The administration is fighting to conceal the contents of an email sent to Gov. Mike Pence by a political ally. That email is being sought by a prominent Democratic labor lawyer who says he wants to expose waste in the Republican administration.

But legal experts fear the stakes may be much higher than mere politics because the decision could remove a judicial branch check on executive power and limit a citizen's right to know what the government is doing and how it spends taxpayer dollars.

"It comes down to this — the court is giving up its ability to check another branch of government, and that should worry people," said Gerry Lanosga, an Indiana University media professor specializing in public records law.

In the case, Indianapolis attorney William Groth is appealing a decision handed down by Marion Superior Court in April, which decided that redactions the administration made to a public record could not be second-guessed by the court.

The focal point in the case is a political “white paper” that had been excluded from Groth’s public records request.

Pence’s legal defense team claims the white paper is attorney work product protected by Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act — and at the end of the day, matters of public records are not for a court to decide.

Groth argues the lower court misapplied the law.

“I think governmental transparency is an important concern of anyone who lives in a democracy – the governor cannot put himself above the law,” Groth told the IndyStar.

How the case came about

The matter stems from a lawsuit filed after President Barack Obama announced in November 2014 that he was taking new steps to "fix America’s broken immigration system." Those steps included offering deferred enforcement of immigration laws for parents of children born in the United States, and for children who entered the United States before they were 16 years old.

The action drew the ire of Republican governors across the country, including Pence, who called the policy a "profound mistake."

Pence, joined in on a lawsuit led by Texas Gov. Greg Abbot in State of Texas, et al v. United States, with the blessing of the Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller. Zoeller's office did not respond to IndyStar requests for comment.

Pence hired Indianapolis law firm Barnes & Thornburg to join the Texas litigation. A representative from the firm — which is also representing Pence in this case — did not respond to IndyStar requests for interview.

In December 2014, Groth requested information regarding Pence's decision to hire outside counsel and the cost to Indiana taxpayers.

"I think joining the lawsuit without the attorney general and hiring that firm was a waste of taxpayer dollars and the people have the right to know how much of their money was spent,” Groth said. Groth is known in Indiana for representing the plaintiffs in the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court voter identification case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

Pence produced the documents in the request “but those documents included substantial redaction,” according to court documents.

The 57-page response also included an email that Daniel Hodge, Abbott's chief of staff, sent to 30 recipients in various states asking them to join the lawsuit against Obama.

The message included an attached white paper, but the governor failed to produce the document, according to court records.

After a yearlong trial, the Superior Court held that the issue was not a matter for the courts to decide, citing a Indiana Supreme Court case decided just days before.

In a 4-1 ruling, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in Citizens Action Coalition, et al. v. Indiana House Rep., that underthe Indiana Constitution’s separation of powers clause the legislature's redactions were nonjusticiable, a legal term that means not for the court to decide. Groth was also the attorney representing the plaintiffs in that case.

Groth appealed in June and the Indiana Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments Nov. 21 at 1 p.m. at the Statehouse, where each side will be allowed 20 minutes for arguments.

'A dangerous legal precedent'

Paul Jefferson, a former professor of state constitutional law at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, said the major question for the appellate court to decide is "whether they're going to extend that (Citizens Action Coalition, et al. v. Indiana House Rep.) to the executive branch as a whole."

He said if the court rules in favor of the governor, "that would severely limit the Access to Public Records Act."

It's a fear that even the highest levels of court have warned about.

In the sole dissent of the Citizens Action Coalition lawsuit, Indiana Supreme Court Justice Justice Robert Rucker stated: “The majority’s ruling is not only premature, but it unfortunately weighs in on a significant separation of powers issue without an adequate record.”

The state's public access counselor, Luke Britt, appointed by Pence in 2013, also fears what might happen if other public officials invoke the Citizens Action Coalition privilege. "After that case, a lot of local government officials were trying to claim a similar privilege — that was one of my fears."

Jefferson said that "this will be interesting in part because it is hard to draw clean lines between what would be and what wouldn’t be if excluded from a public records request if the court is going to exempt the executive branch from public records review."

Lanosga, the public access professor, says the outcome of the case will set a precedent on what are appropriate levels of transparency in government.

"It shows no accountability," he said, "that an agency can say things are exempt just because and citizens have no recourse."

Quote from: Icy on November 14, 2016, 10:13:14 PM

Quote from: TurkTurkBangBang on November 14, 2016, 12:45:18 PM

He'll just end up putting his assets in a blind trust for the duration of his presidency. It won't be a big deal.

I wouldn't exactly say his children running his companies is a "blind trust"

Because it isn't. They aren't eligible to do so because they're on his staff.

Mr. Trump has said he will eliminate ethical concerns by turning the management of his company over to his children, an arrangement he has referred to as a blind trust.

BARTIROMO: Mr. Trump, your net worth is in the multi-billions of dollars and have an ongoing thriving hotel and real estate business. Are you planning on putting your assets in a blind trust should you become president? With such vast wealth, how difficult will it be for you to disentangle yourself from your business and your money and prioritize America’s interest first?

TRUMP: Well, it’s an interesting question because I’m very proud of my company. As you too know, I know I built a very great company. But if I become president, I couldn’t care less about my company. It’s peanuts.

I want to use that same up here, whatever it may be to make America rich again and to make America great again. I have Ivanka, and Eric and Don sitting there. Run the company kids, have a good time. I’m going to do it for America.

So I would — I would be willing to do that.

BARTIROMO: So you’ll put your assets in a blind trust?

TRUMP: I would put it in a blind trust. Well, I don’t know if it’s a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it. If that’s a blind trust, I don’t know. But I would probably have my children run it with my executives and I wouldn’t ever be involved because I wouldn’t care about anything but our country, anything.

I'm honestly having trouble taking anything seriously at this point from the NY Times and Washington Post after how they handled themselves this election.

Quote from: Mr Deplorable on November 14, 2016, 07:26:23 PM

I'd love to know who this "Credible inside source" is.

Same. Although, the original article in the print version of today's WSJ points out that Trump is currently lagging behind Obama's naming of new hires--at least lending credence to the claim that Trump's staff was unprepared for the scope of that.

I could take a photo of it, if you'd like. I can't find it online.

Spoiler

Khan brought his wife onto the stage with him while she wore an Islamic outfit, yet she didn't say anything. And if you say "she was grieving over her dead son" then why is she supporting the women who played a role in his son's death? and why is she attacking the man who wants to stop fighting wars in the middle east?

Because both rulings pertain to major campaign promises of his, and both were made in the mid 1960s, I am assuming that his team would do their own internal research into the legality of his proposals, which is probably why he singled out the year 1965 in particular in his immigration speech. Now If you think I'm reading to much into this then I'll drop the point, but his campaign slogan is Janus faced, "Make America Great Again" does imply overturning recent developments and a return to earlier historical norms.

As for the pussy tape, he had two years of nonstop media coverage before that, it's up to his lawyers to find something worthy of court among that.

Because he would be on the defensive reacting to them, instead of taking the initiative and making everyone react to him.

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 14, 2016, 08:35:03 AM

I'm digressing here, but I'd also say the Trump campaign didn't respond properly either, at the least--they seemed to prefer revoking press access to events, instead of releasing official statements asking for retractions or corrections. It's bizarre to me that the Trump campaign didn't issue their own fact-checking of sorts, because that would have brought attention to specific instances of bias (Steph Molyneux did a better job of this than the Trump campaign ever did.)

That would give credibility to the meida, and imply that Trump has to answer to them and their demands, which goes against his campaign of running against the system.