Re: Isn't Email Hacking Illegal? Palin

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:35:41 -0400, Zeligg <zeligg@guessagain.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:43:19 -0400, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:43:32 -0400, Zeligg <zeligg@guessagain.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 06:18:10 -0400, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:10:02 -0700, No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:38:30 -0700, No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> And the reports just say the same thing over and over
without any
>>>>>>>> supporting proof provided.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ROTFLMAO!  The URLs you were given showed pictures of her
inbox on
>>>>>>>one email account, showing the title of a message that was
obviously
>>>>>>>about state business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sigh...For about the 12th time: not one of those URLs showed
any
>>>>>> content of state business related messages.  You can't tell if
those
>>>>>> messages were joke message, personal opinions about a political
issue
>>>>>> (which belongs in private email), or what you claim them to be.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sigh.  When you have a title about the governor of California and a
>>>>>container tax that was known to be an issue in Alaska, it is damn
>>>>>obvious that this is state business.
>>>>
>>>>How do you know it's not a private discussion about the issues?  No
>>>>message content, no evidence.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>She is being investigated and a recent article stated that
there was
>>>>>>>enough there to continue with obtaining copies from Yahoo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which article?
>>>>>
>>>>>The one mentioned in  some another persons post at about ths same
time
>>>>>that I posted that comment.  Try to keep up.
>>>>
>>>>Mighty vague of you.  If you can't bother to provide it, I won't
>>>>bother to read it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are quite frankly in denial, and have yet to apologize
for your
>>>>>>>instulting post in which you obviously had not even read
what I
>>>>>>>actually said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually it seems that *you* are the one in denial since you've
>>>>>> provided no evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>ROTFLMAO.  I showed you a link to a screen snapshot of her inbox,
>>>>>with at least one message obviosly referring to state business.
>>>>
>>>>And not a single single message with content.  Feel free to keep
>>>>claiming something is true without evidence.  It is the way of the
>>>>left after all.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><repeitition/silliness snipped and ignored>
>>>>
>>>>Since apparently you were unable to address the remarks,  I'll repost:
>>>>
>>>>You provided cites that you claim  prove she
>>>>used personal accounts for state business but consist of either
>>>>repeating the claim, or showing subject lines that *could* be state
>>>>related.  Isn't it interesting that the only message content provided
>>>>in your cites are boringly personal? Yet you seem to accept that is
>>>>incontrovertable proof of your claim.  As soon as you can make your
>>>>case get back to me.  If I'm wrong, I'll admit.  Until then, there's
>>>>nothing for which to apologize.
>>>
>>>Hopeless.  HER PEOPLE AGREED SHE USES YAHOO AND GOOGLEMAIL TO
>>>SOMETIMES CONDUCT GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND AS A BACKUP TO HER GOV
>>>EMAIL.  Papers such as the Washington post have made that claim, and
>>
>>Cite with quote please.  I do not believe in the use of "sources" and
>>etc in any media story.   Is what I'm asking for so unreasonable?
>
>I have already posted the same information before.  Here it is again--
>
>"She is allowed to keep e-mails confidential if they fall into certain
>categories, such as "deliberative process," said her press secretary,
>Bill McAllister.

Is the "deliberative process" considered official state business?  If
it is, then why would the press secretary say this?  For that matter,
if you read the remarks you quoted above, he didn't mention the Yahoo
account.

>
>And, he said later, she appropriately uses her personal Yahoo account
>for political activities.

*Political activities* not official state business.  The term to me
means things like running for election.  The claim was Palin has
admitted using her Yahoo account for official state business.  This
does not prove that claim.  I believe it was you, when providing the
cite previously who said "this is as close as she comes".  Why
continue to make the claim still then?

>
>"I don't hear any public clamor for access to internal communications
>of the governor's office," McAllister said."
>
>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008180084_palinemail15.html
>
>>
>>>no one from Palin's spokespeople have come back to say those
>>>statements are untrue.  They only deny that she used it illegally.
>>>they claim she used them within the limits of the law.  They say it.
>>>palin's people say it.  i don't know how many times I can point that
>>>out.  Let's try one more time.  They say it.  Them.
>>>
>>>ps - Did I mention that palin's spokespeople admit it?
>>
>>Where?
>
>Here -
>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008180084_palinemail15.html

It's not there, as I described above.

>
>
>BTW - as an addendum -
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081008/ts_alt_afp/usvotecrimeinternetpalin

The cite supports *my* position.  From the cite:

""According to the indictment, Kernell posted screenshots of the
emails and other personal information to a public Web site," the
Justice Department added."
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]