One thing that has jumped out at me about Hillary's comments is that at first glance we've lapsed into a Republican trick in our defense. Specifically, we point to 'plantation' comments by Newt Gingrich, and writers from The National Review, Townhall, etc to justify Hillary's words. Is this the the same as when Republicans point to claims that Democratic presidents have violated FISA in defense of Bush's illegality? No, its not, and I can think of two main reasons why that's the case.
- This is the one that all of you thought when you read the idea that Democratic Presidents violated FISA---"That's not true!" Indeed, both Clinton and Carter did not spy on Americans without getting a warrant from the FISA court for more than the automatic 72 hours.
- But even if they had, the defense is much stronger in this context than in that one. Here, the issue is social convention and potential offense, while there the issue is lawbreaking. Let me illustrate with two examples:
A. A man holds up a liquor store. He's charged with armed robbery. He argues that his holding up the store is OK, or at least partially excusable, because it had just been held up.
B. A man is accused of calling another individual an "asshole" at a party. He responds that the other individual called him an asshole first, so his conduct is excused.
Clearly, the robber in the first example has no defense even if he is telling the truth, while the man in the second example has a decent point if he is telling the truth.
The lesson, as always: Republicans are wrong.