pageok
pageok
pageok
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.

Federal Dog:
""On one hand, I'm pleased that the judge saw fit to order the retrieval and preservation of these e-mails, to the extent of going to the providers to get them," said McLeod, a Republican who was formerly close to Palin."

Does anyone know why this person, who was once close to Palin, is now estranged?
10.12.2008 2:46pm
Cornellian (mail):
I remain astounded that a governor was, apparently, conducting state business using a hotmail account.
10.12.2008 3:06pm
Oren:
Considering that the hacked mailbox had very little political content, I hope the judge sees fit to have a special master filter through them and remove all the personal crap ASAP.

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.
10.12.2008 3:07pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

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.
10.12.2008 3:15pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ 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.
10.12.2008 3:16pm
J. Aldridge:
Whatever happened to those emails belonging to Doris Matsui, Marsha Scott, Sidney Blumenthal, Cheryl Mills, Bruce Lindsey, Erskine Bowles, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Hernreich, John Podesta, Ira Magaziner, Ann Lewis, Charles Ruff, Lanny Breuer, Paul Begala, Ashley Raines and Betty Currie ?

POOF!
10.12.2008 3:19pm
J. Aldridge:
So Cornellian, I assume you conduct all your personal business with your company email account? hmmmm?
10.12.2008 3:21pm
John Armstrong (mail) (www):
Cornellian, why are you astounded? A Hotmail account was, until this ruling, not under the eye of the usual monitors. How many messages she didn't want publicized might she have deleted before this order came across. Under the circumstances, I'm astounded that all politicians don't have Hotmail or Yahoo or GMail accounts to keep their business away from the public eye.
10.12.2008 3:36pm
I Know It All:
McLeod was out hounding Palin for a govt job and Palin refused to give her one.
10.12.2008 3:39pm
brent:
Presumably she had used personal email before getting elected governor. spalin@yahoo.com or sarahbarracuda@hotmail.com or whatever she chose would have served just fine for this purpose and, indeed, would continue serving just fine after her election.

What the heck do you register a new 'gov_palin' account for if not to incorporate the office?
10.12.2008 3:40pm
Dave N (mail):
Brent,

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.
10.12.2008 3:45pm
PC:
Does anyone know why this person, who was once close to Palin, is now estranged?

That should be obvious. He hates America.
10.12.2008 4:02pm
quixoticneophyte:
Re: McLeod - She's sort of a crazy person who would never make news if she didn't cling to the publicity of another person. McLeod had worked in the Murkowski administration, and when Palin took Murkowski out, McLeod wanted a job in Palin's administration. McLeod was all nice and helpful and pleasant with Sarah... until Palin didn't give her a job. Since then, McLeod has been practically stalking Palin while looking for some sort of scandal to create. It's simply laughable that the media now refers to her as a "watchdog" or as "someone who monitors ethics" or some other flattering description. While the national media may portray her as some ethics hero, most Alaskans know her as a kooky political hack.
10.12.2008 4:02pm
Hoosier:
What about the email from her many lovers? Must she keep that too? And turn it over to some judge when he needs salacious material to make his day go faster?

What about that?!

HUH?!!!
10.12.2008 4:27pm
Oren:

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.

Well, preservation of those emails from deletion is the first step towards providing such an example. I trust you approve of this decision then.
10.12.2008 4:27pm
Angus:
She's probably estranged because Palin has a tendency to turn on those who helped her to ascend the political ladder, just as she's starting to turn on McCain now to set herself up for 2012.
10.12.2008 4:30pm
Gaius Obvious (mail):

Well, preservation of those emails from deletion is the first step towards providing such an example. I trust you approve of this decision then.
For every sender there is a receipient. Yet no one on the receving end has been able to show they received an e-mail dealing with official, non-partisan, non-political, non-campaign business from a Gov Palin commercial e-mail account. Curious.

It seems there's no "there" there.
10.12.2008 5:06pm
Oren:

It seems there's no "there" there.

Then no harm is done ordering the preservation of non-incriminating evidence.

Where's the beef here?
10.12.2008 5:21pm
MarkField (mail):

What about the email from her many lovers? Must she keep that too? And turn it over to some judge when he needs salacious material to make his day go faster?

What about that?!

HUH?!!!


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.
10.12.2008 5:26pm
Dave N (mail):
Oren,

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.
10.12.2008 5:39pm
Cornellian (mail):
I remain unastounded that you don't actually have an example of this

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?
10.12.2008 5:45pm
Cornellian (mail):
just as she's starting to turn on McCain now to set herself up for 2012.

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.
10.12.2008 5:47pm
Cornellian (mail):
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.

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.
10.12.2008 5:55pm
Hoosier:
MarkField--Point taken. But to get at the NSA intelligence collections, don't you have to appeal to the lawyers at the Israeli Embassy?
10.12.2008 5:56pm
Oren:

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.

I assume that they don't need a protective order -- they are protected by security commensurate with their importance.
10.12.2008 6:07pm
Federal Dog:
"Palin has a tendency to turn on those who helped her to ascend the political ladder, just as she's starting to turn on McCain now to set herself up for 2012."

What are you talking about now? Please post links to proof of your ongoing accusations.
10.12.2008 6:20pm
Jay Myers:

McLeod is also seeking the release by Palin of some 1,100 e-mails the governor held back from an earlier public records request, citing executive privilege. McLeod's lawyer asserts that Palin waived that privilege by routinely copying messages to her husband, Todd, who is not a state employee.

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?
10.12.2008 6:47pm
Xmas (mail) (www):
There may be a problem here. I'm pretty sure the gov_palin account was already deleted. The /b/ folks kept resetting the password since the security questions on Yahoo! were not very secure. 'What's your ZIP code?' is the question, I believe, the "hacker" used to gain access to the account.

I think someone will need to approach Yahoo! to get the emails, if they are available at all.
10.12.2008 7:34pm
Angus:

What are you talking about now? Please post links to proof of your ongoing accusations.
All of those news stories about how McCain needs to let "Palin be Palin" and "Loose the Bulldog" it seems are leaks from the Palin camp. It's so that McCain takes all the blame in the case of the 99% certain loss. Here's the latest and most direct:
Link
10.12.2008 7:35pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ 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.
10.12.2008 7:44pm
Dave N (mail):
Oren,
McLeod is also seeking the release by Palin of some 1,100 e-mails the governor held back from an earlier public records request, citing executive privilege. McLeod's lawyer asserts that Palin waived that privilege by routinely copying messages to her husband, Todd, who is not a state employee.
Thus the need for a protective order.
10.12.2008 7:46pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ 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.
10.12.2008 7:49pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmmm.

@ Cornellian (mail):


"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?"


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.
10.12.2008 7:53pm
PC:
Curious how these things never seem to happen to Democrats.

Someone missed the 90s.
10.12.2008 7:58pm
TruthInAdvertising:
"For every sender there is a receipient. Yet no one on the receving end has been able to show they received an e-mail dealing with official, non-partisan, non-political, non-campaign business from a Gov Palin commercial e-mail account. Curious.

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
10.12.2008 7:59pm
Milhouse (www):
I've never understood the whole issue. I assume that state officials' telephone conversations are not being recorded; so are they prohibited from talking about state business? How about face-to-face conversations, at the water cooler, in the elevator, over lunch? Are they not allowed to talk about work anywhere where there isn't someone taking minutes? So why can't they talk business on their private email accounts?

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?
10.12.2008 8:04pm
MarkField (mail):

But to get at the NSA intelligence collections, don't you have to appeal to the lawyers at the Israeli Embassy?


That works for ordinary stuff, but for juicy stuff like this you need to go all the way to the top: AIPAC.
10.12.2008 8:06pm
Federal Dog:
Angus:

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.
10.12.2008 8:13pm
James Love (mail):
This issue goes far far beyond Government Palin. I work with several federal agencies in the area of trade and intellectual property rights, and the use of private email accounts is quite common in some agencies (and in the White House), explicitly so these officials can avoid FOIA laws. It is very hard to control, and reduces transparency.
10.12.2008 8:19pm
Random Commenter:
"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."

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.
10.12.2008 8:23pm
DangerMouse:
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.
10.12.2008 8:52pm
Ben P (mail):

I remain astounded that a governor was, apparently, conducting state business using a hotmail account.


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.
10.12.2008 9:08pm
PC:
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.


GMail is much better.
10.12.2008 9:09pm
Ben P (mail):

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.
10.12.2008 9:11pm
Cornellian (mail):
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".

Glass houses, Governor Palin, glass houses.
10.12.2008 9:24pm
NickM (mail) (www):
The funny thing is that many free email accounts require you to log in at least once every so many days (usually 30, 60, 90, or 180) or the emails will be deleted.

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
10.12.2008 9:33pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ed:

I keep reading articles about how Palin conducted state business with private email accounts. But there are never any actual examples.


gaius:

no one on the receving end has been able to show they received an e-mail dealing with official, non-partisan, non-political, non-campaign business from a Gov Palin commercial e-mail account.


truth already showed proof. Here's some more:

"This trooper is still out on the street, in fact he's been promoted," said a Feb. 7, 2007, e-mail sent from Palin's personal Yahoo account and written to give Monegan permission to speak on a violent-crime bill before the state legislature.


I notice we haven't heard from ed or gaius since truth spoke up.
10.12.2008 9:48pm
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
Well, the folks who were certain that Palin is stupid/crooked/vengeful now have more confirmatory non-evidence. Yes, that has a touch of admonishment in it, but it is the way all of us think. Well, all of you, anyway. I am Spock-like in my rationality, of course.

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.
10.12.2008 10:21pm
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
jukeboxgrad - I expect there will be many things in the emails which can be construed as doing government business by those inclined to see it that way. I am more worried about information that might be considered sensitive in some way. While that, too, will vary by one's initial narrative, it is a distinction I think important to try to keep in mind.
10.12.2008 10:26pm
PC:
NickM, thank goodness we had President Bush around to make sure those records would be stored somewhere.
10.12.2008 10:45pm
Psalm91 (mail):
"Curious how these things never seem to happen to Democrats.

Someone missed the 90s."

....and the last 8 years.
10.12.2008 11:08pm
Guest12345:
Jukeboxgrad writes:
"This trooper is still out on the street, in fact he's been promoted," said a Feb. 7, 2007, e-mail sent from Palin's personal Yahoo account and written to give Monegan permission to speak on a violent-crime bill before the state legislature.


I notice we haven't heard from ed or gaius since truth spoke up.


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.
10.12.2008 11:37pm
csm:
"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.
10.13.2008 12:00am
Guest12345:
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?
10.13.2008 12:22am
Guest12345:
To clarify me previous question, the situation was referred to the personal board as an ethics question because she was, supposedly, using the governor's office for personal gain (getting Wooten fired.) So I'm curious what the official act was.
10.13.2008 12:38am
csm:
"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.
10.13.2008 12:39am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
idiot:

I expect there will be many things in the emails which can be construed as doing government business by those inclined to see it that way.


You're implying that the email I cited can be construed as something other than "doing government business." Really? Are you serious?
=================
guest:

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.


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?

I'm curious what the official act was.


The official act was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten.

csm:

Removing (demoting, actually) Monegan from his position in part because he would not fire Wooten.


That wasn't the only official act. Pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten was also an official act.

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.


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.
10.13.2008 1:06am
geokstr:
OK, let's make a deal. Sarah Palin must turn over all her emails from all her private accounts and if anything can be shown to be definitely government business, Palin must resign the nomination for VP immediately...

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.
10.13.2008 1:30am
Dan M.:
jukebox:

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.
10.13.2008 1:35am
Guest12345:


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.


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.

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?


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.
10.13.2008 2:12am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dan:

you all but conceded but maintained that they could at the very least be perceived as pressure


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.

Those e-mails are NOT pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten


Really? Imagine that C works for B, and B works for A. Imagine that A says the following to B:

C is still out on the street, in fact he's been promoted … It was a joke, the whole year long 'investigation' of C … DPS has come across as merely turning a blind eye or protecting C


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.
10.13.2008 3:56am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
guest:

no official activity at all


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.

I'm pretty certain that if Palin had any official capacity to fire a state trooper


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.

Just concerned family members trying to act in what they considered their sister's best interest.


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.

The legislature punted that to the personnel board as neither the legislature nor Branchflower have any authority to determine such things.


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.
10.13.2008 4:11am
Guest12345:
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.


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.

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 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.
10.13.2008 1:05pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
guest:

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


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."
10.13.2008 4:05pm
Mac (mail):
I

In response to her request, McLeod received four large boxes of emails. This batch of documents did not contain any proof that Frye and Bailey had worked on government time to boot out Ruedrich. But there was other information she found
troubling
. Several of the emails suggested to her that Palin's office had used its influence to reward a Fairbanks surveyor who was a Palin fundraiser with a state job. In early August, McLeod filed a complaint with the state attorney general against Palin, Bailey, and other Palin aides, claiming they had violated ethics and hiring laws. Palin, now the Republican vice-presidential candidate, told the Alaska Daily News that "there were no favors done for anybody."


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.
10.13.2008 4:10pm
Mac (mail):
Apologies for the editing. I hit Post when I meant to hit Preview. Sigh.
10.13.2008 4:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mac:

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.


Please continue to ignore the fact that I cited a clear example where "the Gov. used her private e-mail account for Gov. business."
10.13.2008 5:06pm
SAZMD:

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.


This is exactly backwards. As Guest says:


But the authority to reach a conclusion that is binding as a matter of law, in this instance, rests with the personnel board.


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.
10.13.2008 7:47pm
TruthInAdvertising:
"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."

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
10.14.2008 1:53am