And no, crimes of past president's are not irrelevant. They are very relevant since they show the hypocrisy of people who will excuse those crimes but suddenly become appalled when someone else does the exact same thing. If you didn't consider it a crime then you can't consider it a crime now.
You can't have it both ways hypocrite.
Wow - is that cognitive dissonance engine fusion powered? You were just saying how Hillary's corruption is okay because Bush did it first. Just a few problems with that:
Powell barely used email, and what emails he sent were preserved - unlike the 30,000 Hillary deleted. If she were anyone else, she'd be in prison for obstruction of justice in addition to mishandling classified evidence.
Speaking of scale, the Bush Administration tortured at least a hundred people to death, that we know of. Would you therefore be okay if Hillary has a hundred thousand people tortured to death? Because Bush did it first, and criminal Republicans set the floor of what is acceptable?
Partisan Democrats keep yelling that people are forgetting about Bush's private email servers - all the while forgetting how much they bitched at Bush at the time for doing so. Partisan Democrats like Hillary Rodham Clinton:
- "Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," Clinton said. "It's a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent."
And yet two years later she did the same damn thing, only on a vastly larger scale. So, make sure to repeat that rant about hypocrisy - in the nearest mirror.