Palin Must Keep Private E-Mails:
An Alaska judge has issued an order requiring Gov. Palin to preserve e-mails from private e-mail accounts (including the one that was hacked) which she used to conduct state business.
Palin Must Keep Private E-Mails:
An Alaska judge has issued an order requiring Gov. Palin to preserve e-mails from private e-mail accounts (including the one that was hacked) which she used to conduct state business. |
Does anyone know why this person, who was once close to Palin, is now estranged?
It would be interesting to see (for the rest of the mailboxes, and who knows how many there are), what fraction is personal and what fraction is business email hiding out.
I keep reading articles about how Palin conducted state business with private email accounts. But there are never any actual examples. The most anybody has is a few emails from aides.
Problem is that a public official is -barred- from using the state email account for personal and political purposes.
Sooooo. If Palin communicates to an aide about the next election then it's personal business. If Palin communicates to an aide about impending legislation then it's public business.
Now I'm just going to wait until the anti-Palin twits cough up an actual example of Palin using a private email account to -actually- conduct public business.
@ Cornellian
"I remain astounded that a governor was, apparently, conducting state business using a hotmail account."
I remain unastounded that you don't actually have an example of this and that you've got nothing but vague insinuations and abstract allegations.
Like usual, all puff.
POOF!
What the heck do you register a new 'gov_palin' account for if not to incorporate the office?
I would suspect that the reason she would create a "Gov_Palin" account would be to conduct non-state, political business that was readily identifiable to recipients. I get a ton of e-mail on a regular basis (usually asking for money, telling me things are desperate, or whatever) putatively signed by John McCain--and none of it is off the McCain.senate.gov domain.
That should be obvious. He hates America.
What about that?!
HUH?!!!
Well, preservation of those emails from deletion is the first step towards providing such an example. I trust you approve of this decision then.
It seems there's no "there" there.
Then no harm is done ordering the preservation of non-incriminating evidence.
Where's the beef here?
Everyone's forgetting that the NSA already keeps all of our emails. And they have special transcripts of the ones between Palin and her gay lovers.
I personally see no beef as long as there is a protective order in place that the contents of all the e-mails remain private absent a court order to the contrary.
Well, I take that back. If she responded positively to a Nigerian lottery scam then those deserve to be published and Governor Palin should be held out to public ridicule.
First of all, I did say "apparently" because it seems she was doing this based on the WaPo story and earlier accounts. Second, the WaPo story says she did and quotes a McCain spokesman as "confirming the existence of the accounts." Presumably if she wanted to deny using them for government business she would have said so. Do you have a quote from her containing such a denial?
Truly there is no better way to ensure Obama is reelected in 2012 than for the Republicans to nominate Palin. Not likely to happen though. I'll be interested to see if Romney and Huckabee are back.
I assume the order would be to preserve the emails, it doesn't require her to show the emails to anyone. That would be a separate order issued (if at all) after a separate proceeding.
I assume that they don't need a protective order -- they are protected by security commensurate with their importance.
What are you talking about now? Please post links to proof of your ongoing accusations.
How does this make sense in light of US v Nixon where the court recognized "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties"? I see no reason why all of those relied upon for advice must be government employees. Most presidents have 'kitchen cabinets' or 'brain trusts' so why shouldn't governors and why should the advice of those advisors be any less confidential than those sucking on the public teat?
I think someone will need to approach Yahoo! to get the emails, if they are available at all.
Link
@ Oren
"Well, preservation of those emails from deletion is the first step towards providing such an example. I trust you approve of this decision then."
What I'd like is proof of these allegations. We've been seeing these unfounded allegations for weeks now with nothing behind them.
Put up, or shut up.
@ Oren
"Then no harm is done ordering the preservation of non-incriminating evidence. Where's the beef here?"
Because many of these are private emails detailing private issues.
And quite frankly I have --zero-- confidence in the neutrality of the judicial system.
IMO I actually have zero confidence in the neutrality of any agency, at any level. I fully expect that, amazingly enough, any and all emails "preserved" by this court will end in the hands of Democrats who will use them as weapons. And I fully expect that the judge responsible won't be punished for it.
In my personal opinion there is no trust whatsoever nor can there be any trust as judges have shown themselves repeatedly as unreliable and untrustworthy.
Curious how these things never seem to happen to Democrats.
No, not curious at all.
@ Cornellian (mail):
Yet the WaPo itself has never actually detailed -any- example of this.
You want a quote from Palin denying this? Google it yourself, I'm not your research assistant.
Someone missed the 90s.
It seems there's no "there" there."
False all the way around. The fact that Palin has personal e-mail accounts that she conducted state business on has been well-documented due to requests for e-mails through the Open Records Act. When these requests were made, state officials turned over e-mails from state officials and state employees who had received mail from Palin's personal account about activities related to state business or with subjects that would indicate that state business was being discussed. In at least one example, a state staffer had to be reminded not to send a message to Palin's official state account but to the personal account. These facts have been well-documented and actually became an issue before Palin was selected to run for VP.
Governor's two e-mail accounts questioned
Sarah Palin's Secret Emails
Email threads or even individual messages don't neatly divide between business and non-business. If a message is partly personal or political (and thus may not be sent from a government account), but mentions a work matter as well, how should it be sent? Is it really the law that the work matter must be separated out and sent in a separate message from a different account? That seems insane, and certainly not designed to promote productivity among state employees!
This article from Snopes shows how Google's premises are arranged. "Innovation: Large boards are available just about everywhere because 'ideas don't always come when seated in the office' says one of Google's managers." Imagine if they had rules such as this affair suggests Alaska should have!
Can someone please explain this to me?
That works for ordinary stuff, but for juicy stuff like this you need to go all the way to the top: AIPAC.
Shame on you for inventing more false rumors. Nothing whatsoever in that account remotely suggests that she has either "turned on" McCain, much less has a history of "turning on" people who have helped her in the past.
Here is what the story says:
" Palin’s frustration with McCain has led to clashes over strategy. When she learnt he was pulling resources from Michigan, an industrial swing state leaning heavily in Obama’s favour, she fired off an e-mail saying, “Oh come on, do we have to?” and offered to travel there with her husband Todd, four-times winner of the 2,000-mile Iron Dog snow-mobile race.
She also told Bill Kristol, the conservative New York Times columnist, that she wished the campaign would make more of Obama’s 20-year association with the Rev Jeremiah Wright, his controversial former pastor, who said, “God damn America”.
“To me, that does say something about character,” Palin said. “But you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring it up.”
I do not respect the repeated resort to deception to smear people who dissent from your political views. It is despicable.
Who knows? However, if Obama reverts to type once elected, the GOP won't have to do much more than put a name on the ballot to take back the WH.
America has to elect its David Dinkins. Then after he's voted out, normalcy can resume.
I could see setting up a Private Server, or even using a higher quality public one, but seriously a hotmail account?
I'm more willing to forgive certain breaches of ethics than I am that kind of sheer stupidity.
I'm more willing to forgive certain breaches of ethics than I am that kind of sheer stupidity.
GMail is much better.
whether or not you're being sarcastic, that's one of several accounts I use just for web sign ins. Nothing overly senstive goes through that account.
Glass houses, Governor Palin, glass houses.
I know of others, especially ones with small mailbox capacities, that delete the oldest messages to avoid going over the box size limit.
And then there's AOL, which deletes all mail after a month unless you took positive steps to save it (keep as new doesn't count).
Any one of these situations could thoroughly frustrate a court order of this nature.
Nick
gaius:
truth already showed proof. Here's some more:
I notice we haven't heard from ed or gaius since truth spoke up.
Groups behave in the same way, leaping to conclusions and forming alliances, whether they have any data to work on or not. For those interested in learning more about it I recommend reading up on Tavistock Model or group relations conferences. Any important narrative (Palin is ok/Palin is not ok) takes on a life of its own, and ambiguous information can be used by believers of all narratives to confirm their impression. Someone who wants to slowly convince you of something need only get a toehold of assent to their narrative. Then ambiguous information can be poured in repeatedly, all of which the new believer considers to be confirmation of his narrative.
That's not just Democrats, that's everyone. It's human nature. Narratives are efficient storers of information, so we gravitate to them.
This does, however, illustrate why information sources must be either neutral or balanced by another force. If a primary information source - the NYTimes, say - persistently offers counternarratives to one POV but lets its opposite be taken at face value, the net result is True Believers who are absolutely sure that they have come to their conclusions on their own steam through much thought. Just human nature. Given enough time, the bias does not have to be particularly dramatic.
Some professions make the formal challenging of assumptions a regular part of both initial and ongoing training. Curiously (and sadly), that does not generalise to other areas. Questioning narrative is hard, because it takes energy that your own brain promises you will be useless.
Someone missed the 90s."
....and the last 8 years.
I'm not ed or gaius, but I think there was just a report delivered recently that found that Gov Palin's interest in Trooper Wooten's employment status was an inappropriate personal activity. So this example is complete crap as far as examples go.
Not really. It was found to be an official act done for personal gain, so it falls within the category of official state business.
What was the official act?
Removing (demoting, actually) Monegan from his position in part because he would not fire Wooten. This email could certainly be a gray area since she had purely personal reasons for her interest in Wooten (allegedly abusive ex bro-in-law), as well an official interest because he is an state trooper.
You're implying that the email I cited can be construed as something other than "doing government business." Really? Are you serious?
=================
guest:
Wrong. Branchflower found that Palin's efforts to fire Wooten were an official action taken to advance a personal interest. Not the same thing as what you said.
Anyway, your perspective embodies the idea that Palin tried to fire Wooten for personal reasons, and not to benefit the state. In other words, you're acknowledging the ethics violation, in an effort to try to get her off the hook regarding the email issue. Choose your poison. Are you sure that's the choice you want to make?
The official act was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten.
csm:
That wasn't the only official act. Pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten was also an official act.
This email is not a gray area, and you already explained why. The fact that she had a personal interest in firing Wooten does not make this a personal email.
Consider the following example. I'm the governor. I email my staff to instruct them that henceforth, all female employees have to work in bikinis. Why? Because I dig looking at hot chicks. Am I doing this for "purely personal reasons?" Yes. Does that mean that this is a personal email? Of course not. I'm taking an official action. The fact that I'm doing this for personal reasons, and to advance a personal interest, does not magically make this a personal email.
If
Obama, Biden, McCain, all the other senators and congressmen, all the top bureacrats (appointed, elected, or civil service), all the justices of the SCOTUS, all federal judges, all state legislators, judges and elected officials have to do so as well.
Since the only reason this is being pursued is to politically harm Palin, then every other top politician must submit to similar scrutiny. The above posters are correct who state that this case is being pursued by a politically frustrated whack-job. There is no case here other than that this fruitcake thinks Palin is mis-using her email account.
Puke.
This is Chicago politics being exported to Alaska by Obama supporters, so it's only right that we treat everyone the same.
Deal?
NO? I'm shocked.
Those e-mails are NOT pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten. They are clearly just bitching and making a point. I raised this issue with you weeks ago and you all but conceded but maintained that they could at the very least be perceived as pressure, which I also conceded. That you can't now admit that those e-mails do not on their face absolutely constitute pressure on Monegan to personally take action against Wooten is disingenuous.
Could you give me a cite for that conclusion? The conclusion I want you to provide the cite for being that Palin's efforts constituted official actions, not that Palin and her family used the governor's office to advance a personal interest. I'm pretty certain that if Palin had any official capacity to fire a state trooper there would have been no investigation, no report, no October surprise. Wooten would have just been kicked to the curb on day 1. As it is there were no meetings, no budgeting, no agenda items, no official activity at all. Just concerned family members trying to act in what they considered their sister's best interest.
This has nothing to do with my perspective. The report is complete. The findings were that the efforts to get Wooten fired would be for Palin's personal gain. The legislature punted that to the personnel board as neither the legislature nor Branchflower have any authority to determine such things.
What's more, the quote you provided is literally two statements of fact. I fail to see how you can look at that and infer any kind of official activity.
The point I made at the time was that even if you merely believe they could be perceived as pressure, that this was sufficient to prove that Palin lied.
Really? Imagine that C works for B, and B works for A. Imagine that A says the following to B:
Are you seriously claiming that A is not attempting to influence B to take some action against C?
Please note that except for the obvious substitutions, I used Palin's exact language.
If I hired you recently, and I tell you that a staff member you just inherited is a rotten bastard, and that his previous managers have been "turning a blind eye or protecting" him, it's fair for you to conclude that I'm expecting you to take some action against him. Especially if my spouse is making similar statements to practically anyone who is willing to listen.
If you work for me, and I make a statement to you that is in some manner a direction to you, regarding how I expect you to do your job, then my statement is "official activity," by definition. It's "official" because it's an aspect of our official relationship: you work for me, which means I give you directions.
Communications which pressured Monegan to fire Wooten were, by definition, official activities. The fact that they were done to benefit a personal interest doesn't change this.
On the other hand, if I ask you what you got your wife for her birthday, that's not "official." It's personal.
You are interchanging the words "capacity" and "activity." I don't know if you're being disingenuous or careless. But you shouldn't do it.
It's an ethics violation for Palin to use her power as governor "to act in what [she] considered [her] sister's best interest." The citizens handed her that power for a different purpose.
Wrong. It's not that they lack the authority "to determine such things." It's that they lack the power to take action against Palin. Not the same thing.
I know I changed words. Because my point is, the governor doesn't have the authority to fire a state trooper. Which means that, by definition, any effort to do so isn't official.
I suppose you could argue that anyone has the authority to make whatever determination they want. But the authority to reach a conclusion that is binding as a matter of law, in this instance, rests with the personnel board.
I'm still waiting for that cite.
Thanks.
Surely you're not serious. That's pure sophistry. Consider the following example. I'm the governor. My secretary is very attractive. One day I tell her this: 'blow me; if you don't, I'm going to do everything in my power to ruin your career; that process will start this afternoon when I write your performance review; you want me to have a smile on my face while I do that, right?'
Please note that I don't have the authority to require my secretary to give me a blow job. But what I'm doing is using the power of my office to pressure her. I'm using official actions, or the threat of official actions, to advance my personal interests.
Pay attention to how asinine your statement is, when applied to this scenario: "the governor doesn't have the authority to demand a blow job. Which means that, by definition, any effort to do so isn't official."
In your silly world, an ethics violation could not possibly exist. Because you're claiming that when I use my official power to advance my personal interests, and to achieve ends that are outside my authority, I'm not being "official."
TruthInAdvertising,
These 2 articles you linked to are more of the same. Out of all the e-mails that have been obtained or illegally made public without the Governor's knowledge, there is no proof.
It is fascinating how this whole thing got going. The e-mails were made public. Someone wondered if the Gov. had used her private e-mail account to conduct State business. No examples, not even in the e-mails published without the Gov.'s knowledge. Yet, it has gone from wondering if the Gov. used her private e-mail account for Gov. business to she HAS. Incredible.
All without one iota of evidence.
But, we are to believe that Resko got big bucks from the State of Ill. through Obama because he was such a good guy and had such a good idea. All that money, I believe, was lost and the old folks home never got built. Ditto, Michele's employer. All that money had nothing to do with his wife and her big, big raise? Even if it didn't, it looks bad and a Republican would be getting reamed out for it.
Do you realize even remotely what a double standard you are employing? If the Gov. had done a tenth of what Obama and Biden have done, you would be up in arms. But, it's the Gov. who is a crook. You just KNOW it. And, Obama and Biden, pure as the driven snow. Or, maybe if it's your guy it just doesn't matter if he is a crook.
You know, if you demanded honesty from your own party, you could get honest people, surely.
If you cover for these crooks, you get crooks and spend the rest of your time telling everyone else how steeling is really not steeling. We all lose. I don't get it. I just can't get over the complete lack of objectivity and the lack of awareness of the double standard being employed.
Please continue to ignore the fact that I cited a clear example where "the Gov. used her private e-mail account for Gov. business."
This is exactly backwards. As Guest says:
Only the Personnel Board can make a legal determination about the Ethics Act. But the Legistlature has the power to act independent of the Personnel Board by impeaching the Governor if they deem it appropriate.
You're still trying to defend that claim? Palin's own staff is acknowledging that the accounts were used for state business but that they won't be able to retrieve the messages and make them available until after the election. Feel free to explain to us why her staff would be lying about the use of the private accounts (if no state business was conducted on the accounts, the state would have no reason to have to retrieve the messages and could deny the request outright).
Palin's (Functional Equivalent of an) Email Cover-up