Why is Hegseth attacked over Signal with no leak, but Hillary's classified emails on a private server got a pass? Where's the consistency?

[SolitarySolace]

Why is Pete Hegseth being vilified over the
SIGNAL chat when no classified information was leaked-and yet Hillary Clinton's unsecured private server with classified emails was dismissed as "no big deal"?
Details:
Critics are attacking Pete Hegseth for being in a Signal chat group where an Atlantic reporter was mistakenly included. There is no evidence that Hegseth leaked classified information.
Compare that to Hillary Clinton, who knowingly used an unsecured private server for classified State Department communications-and was let off by the FBI for "lack of intent." Where’s the consistency? Is this really about national security—or just partisan politics?

[noohair]

A leak is when someone willfully takes private or secret information and gives it out to in an unauthorized fashion to foster an agenda. This was not a leak. It was an administrative error by adding an unauthorized person to a secure communication. Hillary’s situation was criminal negligence.

[Dongie]

That's how the guilty liberal roll.

[exitseven]

It turns out that it was not Hegseth that set up this chat so he really had nothing to do with this. Still, the democrats piled on anyway. Gonzalez actually accused him of being drunk while he was texting. What a dirtbag.

[Dargil]

If Democrats did not have double standards they would have no standards at all.

[Twalli]

Wouldn't a private server be more secure simply because it is private? I won't get arrested for having sex in my house or any other private residence, but may if I try in a public space.

[Luopio27]

There is no consistancy in politics or in the court of law!

[DrPepper12]

One more time but no whataboutism.