Comment by miked | Hacker News Reader

Comment by miked | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Please provide: 1) legal citations to the Alaska and/or Federal laws that say an elected official may not use a personal email account to conduct business. 2) links to the email(s) showing evidence that she broke a law. 3) an explanation as to why you are angry about a claim, stated without any evidence, that she broke the law, but quite happy about an ideological friend who has clearly broken the law and violated someone's privacy; and how you justify the difference. 4) an explanation as to why those people you agree with are innocent even when they've obviously committed a crime, but those you disagree with are guilty until proven innocent. 5) the name of a good civil defense attorney. Public accusations of the criminality of the unconvicted are legally actionable. 6) an explanation as to why murderers should be able to walk free if evidence was illictly obtained, but for the most smeared Presidential-ticket candidate in the last century no accusation is too baseless or low.

Wow, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today? For the record lots of politicians have been caught using personal email accounts for business and I think the same for all of them. The entire reason her email account was hacked was that she was caught using it for state business. If she hadn't skirted the law the email address wouldn't have been known and it wouldn't have been hacked. I do not know the politics of the hacker, but evading public scrutiny by using private email for public matters is not a political issue--it's wrong no matter the party.

The Washington Post has a piece about Palin's email policies, which include CCing her husband on state business:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09...

Employees of major corporations would be fired for the same behavior (Sarbanes-Oxley has 'em all shit scared--destroying evidence like she did is major jail time).

Time agrees that using this un-archived email system is indeed a crime:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842097,00....

> The Alaska Governor could also face charges for conducting official state business using her personal, unarchived e-mail account (a crime), with some critics accusing her of skirting freedom-of- information laws in doing so.

>> Time agrees that using this un-archived email system is indeed a crime.

When I asked for a legal reference, I was hoping for a bit more than a former journalism school student putting a two-word parenthetical remark in an article that reads like one of The Messiah's press releases.

The CC'ing of her husband was for matters relating to her brother-in-law, who was a State Trooper who has publically admitted to: 1) tasering a child with his service taser (the kid was curious about what it would feel like); 2) drinking in a patrol car; 3) (most importantly) has publically admitted that he told Sarah Palin's father that he would "eat a bullet".

This man was a state police officer. Not only should he have been fired the moment ANY one of these was determined, bit charges should have been pressed against him. I would have fired anyone who didn't get rid of him too.

A prediction: this is going to backfire on Obama badly. Palin was a reformer who pissed off a lot of people in power. Very few Americans want police officers walking around who have done any of those things. This is one smear I hope you keep pushing. It helps cement her reputation as the reformer that she truly was.

I'm in a rush, so I don't have time to dissect this the way I want to. I will say, however that:

Please provide ... the name of a good civil defense attorney. Public accusations of the criminality of the unconvicted are legally actionable.

... is ill-informed, melodramatic, and weakens what's otherwise a strong post, albeit one whose sentiment I disagree with.

Sarah Palin's a public figure and, unless the person you're responding to is an officer of the court or a news agency of some kind, I don't think he's going to need a "civil defense" attorney for stating his opinion.

Yes, in the cold light of day, it perhaps was a bit over-the-top. Give me this though: she's been smeared as no other candidate in my lifetime has been (I'm 53). This link (from a site backed by a group that once gave Obama a bunch of money, ironically) clears up some of the worst smears.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

I appreciate the civility of your reply and have upmodded you.

she's been smeared as no other candidate in my lifetime has been

Obviously you were in a coma during the 2000 and 2004 election cycles.

//$22 Million in debt over 5 years as mayor...

A perfect example of the smears I was talking about. Wasilla has this for its money:

"It could seat up to 5,000 people and would include an ice rink and a cushioned hard-surface court where people could play basketball, volleyball and soccer, said Jim Blair, with GDM Inc., an Anchorage firm hired by the city to create a conceptual design for the center.

In addition to sports, the center could be set up to host conventions, trade fairs, theater productions, graduations and even motorcoss competitions.."

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/517370.html

Evidently no other mayors in America have ever purchased city buildings using debt instruments. </sarcasm>

Meanwhile, Obama was chairman of the board of an organization that spent $109,200,000. Want to know what they have to show for it?

"The project appears to have failed to achieve any of its stated, measurable educational goals. For example, a comprehensive study by the Consortium on Chicago School Research concludes:

"Results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge

(Yeah, it's Wikipedia. But follow the good links.)

>> Obviously you were in a coma during the 2000 and 2004 election cycles.

Apparently trashing Sarah Palin wasn't enough. You had to insult me as well.

Obviously you have a definition of smeared that does not include the "Swift Boat (not actually)Veterans for (not anything like)Truth".

You make hyperbolic claims as though Mrs. Palin were some sort of sanctified Joan of Arc riding out to defeat the heretics; when in fact she's nothing more than another corrupt local politician who's gotten lucky in her choice of alignments and is being pushed forward by the fact that she will make a tractable puppet if elected.

This election does not matter, the American people are Fucked no matter which party takes office. And people like you deserve to have their homes taken away, their jobs automated or outsourced, their communications monitored, and to be subject to intrusive social controls.

I will be doing the automating, have a nice day.

>> ... and to be subject to intrusive social controls.

Such as having our email accounts broken into and displayed to the whole world, along with the email addresses and personal photos of friends and family.

Swiftboating: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017385.php

I would encourage you to explore alternative media (such as the above) rather than just following the conventional "wisdom" of the mainstream media. Just because one group owns all the microphones doesn't mean everything they say is the truth.

I appreciate the civility of your reply

The feeling is mutual. I don't agree, however, that Palin's been smeared worse than, say, Barack Obama. From using the dog-whistle politics of racial and religious innuendo to smearing Obama by lying about the nature of his anti-predator legislation in Illinois to connecting him to terror attacks that happened in the 60's, the same good ol' boys club that smeared McCain in 2000 is running his campaign now, using every dirty trick in the book, and acting shocked, shocked that people have the audacity to scrutinize Sarah Palin's record.

The fact is, they're using the sort of up-is-down doublespeak I haven't seen in a First World country outside of 1984. The GOP represents change, but they've been running the country for 8 years. The governor who requested and received more earmarks per capita than any other governor is now an anti-pork reformer. The Obama tax plan will hurt middle class pocketbooks, but his plan cuts taxes more than McCain's does.

This isn't to say that Obama's campaign is perfect, not by a long shot. But even if you prefer McCain's policy positions to Obama's, I don't see how you can deny McCain's running a dirtier campaign. It's not just lying; it's divisive, petty politics. If you disagree with their agenda, you're anti-American. If you criticize Sarah Palin's record, you're a sexist. Never mind that she is on record criticizing Hillary Clinton's accusations of sexism as whining. It's the highest -- or, better, lowest -- form of political cynicism.

The fact is, Sarah Palin deserves scrutiny, just like any other relative unknown selected to be on the presidential ticket of a major national political party. I mean, before a few months ago she didn't know what the VP even did. That's not a smear, that's directly from this interview with her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gkPXSDtGQ Watch it, it's scary.

Sure, you can argue that the average American doesn't know what the VP does. Sure, just like Sarah Palin, the average American hasn't been out of the country much. The problem is, I don't want the average American to be the VP. I want someone who's solidly grounded in the issues that the president will deal with, someone who can be trusted to represent the best of our country, not the mediocre. If she's a serious candidate, her ticket ought to let her get vetted like one.

That's all I'm going to say in the thread. I'm trying not to fully engage in this discussion much because once I start, it'll be difficult to stop. It's off-topic for Hacker News anyway. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com