Mike, You probably know this but I'll tell you anyway; when you are reading an article such as this, words contained within quotations can be attributed to an identified source. Words not in quotes belong to the author. As you can see from this passage there are no quotes. That means this is the author's opinion and nothing more. I tried to help you out by pointing out there were no quotes but you chose to ignore me. See if I try to help you again. At least I know you're not a legal scholar as you clearly have no idea what constitutes 'evidence'.
On Dec 12, 3:57 pm, mike 532 <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem: Palin had used at least two nonofficial email accounts > (such as a Yahoo account) to conduct her state business. Given that > the governor's office did not have access to those accounts, its > information specialists had concluded that the only way to gather all > her emails would be to search the state email accounts for about 70 > people who worked within the executive offices of the governor and > look for emails to and from Palin's nonofficial email accounts. > Palin's office estimated it would cost almost a thousand dollars for > each search of these 70 or so official accounts. > > On Dec 12, 3:28 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Mike, > > > Please point out a QUOTE in this article from Palin or her office that > > confirms she used private email accounts for official state business? > > I'll help you.. there aren't any. What you seem to be taking as > > evidence are the personal comments of the author who clearly has a > > political agenda against Palin. > > > Three months after her email account was hacked (the only real crime.. > > a crime the MSM has all but forgotten) you have; No evidence showing > > her conducting state business on a private email account. No charges > > against her for using her private account for official state business. > > There’s nothing illegal to nail her on. You must be deeply > > disappointed. > > > In fact, her private email account has been far more scrutinized than > > any other political figure and they can find nothing. I've got a > > better chance of telling the truth if I claimed O'Bama was using his > > private email accounts for government business... after all, I've got > > no evidence to prove he didn't, as I do for Palin. > > > On Dec 12, 3:02 pm, mike 532 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > read the article she admits using private email acounts > > > > On Dec 12, 2:30 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I know that, Mike. My question is where is the evidence that Palin did > > > > this?? Assumption and speculation does not count. > > > > > On Dec 12, 1:19 pm, mike 532 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > it is aginst the law to use private emails for government bussiness ! > > > > > > On Dec 12, 12:48 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > Where is the *evidence* of her using a nonofficial account for state > > > > > > business? > > > > > > > The last sentence from the motherjones piece you copied here says it > > > > > > all; > > > > > > > > "...her emails--if the legal reviewers do not censor them > > > > > > > for political purposes--might still make interesting, and perhaps > > > > > > > important, reading. " > > > > > > > "MIGHT still make interesting, and PERHAPS important, reading". It's > > > > > > been three months and still there is nothing. MIGHT it not be > > > > > > responsible for motherjones - and you, Mike - to stop spreading this > > > > > > bullshit until some real evidence exists? > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 11:46 am, mike 532 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > it is not about the election it is about a corrupt politician who > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > unfit for office any office ! > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 9:48 am, Kamakazee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sweet Jesus, when will you and Letterman realize the election > > > > > > > > is over? > > > > > > > > > And ya realize your CIC Elect is having a bit of difficulty > > > > > > > > explaining > > > > > > > > that whole mess in IL right? > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 7:26 am, mike 532 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Palin used these nonofficial accounts for official business, > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > violation of Alaska state open records > > > > > > > > > rules,http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/12/11290_palin_emai... > > > > > > > > > Would You Pay $10,000 for Sarah Palin's Emails? > > > > > > > > > How > > > > > > > > > much would you pay for access to the emails Sarah Palin has > > > > > > > > > sent and > > > > > > > > > received as governor of Alaska? Would you part with $10,000 > > > > > > > > > for them? > > > > > > > > > That's basically what her office is asking. > > > > > > > > > > During the general election, I filed an open records act > > > > > > > > > request for > > > > > > > > > all emails that had gone to and from Palin in her official > > > > > > > > > capacity. > > > > > > > > > And Alaska citizen watchdog Andrée McLeod, who had long been > > > > > > > > > peppering > > > > > > > > > Palin's office with similar requests, did the same. At a time > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > Palin was on the hot seat as Senator John McCain's vice > > > > > > > > > presidential > > > > > > > > > running mate, her office replied that it would cost over > > > > > > > > > $65,000 to > > > > > > > > > round up all of Palin's emails and that Mother Jones would > > > > > > > > > have to > > > > > > > > > cover this cost. > > > > > > > > > > The problem: Palin had used at least two nonofficial email > > > > > > > > > accounts > > > > > > > > > (such as a Yahoo account) to conduct her state business. > > > > > > > > > Given that > > > > > > > > > the governor's office did not have access to those accounts, > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > information specialists had concluded that the only way to > > > > > > > > > gather all > > > > > > > > > her emails would be to search the state email accounts for > > > > > > > > > about 70 > > > > > > > > > people who worked within the executive offices of the > > > > > > > > > governor and > > > > > > > > > look for emails to and from Palin's nonofficial email > > > > > > > > > accounts. > > > > > > > > > Palin's office estimated it would cost almost a thousand > > > > > > > > > dollars for > > > > > > > > > each search of these 70 or so official accounts. > > > > > > > > > > It seemed absurd and unfair for Palin's office to pass the > > > > > > > > > cost of > > > > > > > > > this search on to those who had requested Palin's emails. > > > > > > > > > After all, > > > > > > > > > she should have been using her state email account for state > > > > > > > > > business. > > > > > > > > > In a letter to her office, I maintained that requesters > > > > > > > > > should not be > > > > > > > > > forced to pay for Palin's inappropriate use of nonofficial > > > > > > > > > accounts. > > > > > > > > > Palin's office eventually agreed, deciding it would not > > > > > > > > > charge fees > > > > > > > > > for the extensive search operation that would be necessary to > > > > > > > > > compile > > > > > > > > > Palin's emails. In early October, it informed me that it > > > > > > > > > would begin > > > > > > > > > reviewing Palin's official emails and gather the emails > > > > > > > > > related to > > > > > > > > > state business that were sent to and from her nonofficial > > > > > > > > > accounts. > > > > > > > > > All for no charge. > > > > > > > > > > But there was a rub: this whole process could be expected to > > > > > > > > > take > > > > > > > > > weeks. That meant that none of her emails (from either > > > > > > > > > official or > > > > > > > > > nonofficial accounts) would become public prior to the > > > > > > > > > November 4 > > > > > > > > > election. Because Palin had used these nonofficial accounts > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > official business, arguably in violation of Alaska state open > > > > > > > > > records > > > > > > > > > rules, she had managed (wittingly or not) to orchestrate the > > > > > > > > > functional equivalent of a cover-up--at least, a temporary > > > > > > > > > one. > > > > > > > > > > On December 5, Linda Perez, Palin's administrative director, > > > > > > > > > sent me > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > letter noting that Alaska's Department of Administration had > > > > > > > > > completed > > > > > > > > > the job of assembling Palin's emails into a single account. > > > > > > > > > "The > > > > > > > > > account is now available for records production purposes," > > > > > > > > > she wrote. > > > > > > > > > In all, there are approximately 25,700 emails in this > > > > > > > > > account, the > > > > > > > > > letter reported. > > > > > > > > > > But they are not yet ready for release, and now here come the > > > > > > > > > real > > > > > > > > > fees. > > > > > > > > > > Each email, Perez wrote, has to be opened and printed > > > > > > > > > separately in a > > > > > > > > > "fairly time-consuming" process. The cost for doing this: > > > > > > > > > $3,955.23. > > > > > > > > > The calculations: a staffer paid $15.39 an hour could review > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > 100 > > > > > > > > > emails per hour. And Perez said that Mother Jones and McLeod > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > have to pay for this. > > > > > > > > > > The process, though, would not end there. Once these emails > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > printed out, the records would then be sent to the state's > > > > > > > > > Department > > > > > > > > > of Law (which is headed by a Palin appointee) for "privilege > > > > > > > > > review." > > > > > > > > > That is, individual emails could be withheld on the basis of > > > > > > > > > various > > > > > > > > > exemptions. (When the Palin administration responded to an > > > > > > > > > earlier > > > > > > > > > email request from McLeod regarding two Palin staffers, it > > > > > > > > > withheld > > > > > > > > > over 1100 emails, relying on questionable exemptions.) So > > > > > > > > > there's no > > > > > > > > > guaranteeing how many of these emails will be released. > > > > > > > > > > And there's more. Once the legal review is finished, the > > > > > > > > > emails > > > > > > > > > deemed > > > > > > > > > appropriate for release will have to be copied, and Palin's > > > > > > > > > office > > > > > > > > > will charge a duplication fee. In earlier correspondences, > > > > > > > > > Palin's > > > > > > > > > office indicated the fee could be over 25 cents a page. If > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > 25,000 emails (a page each) are cleared for release, the > > > > > > > > > copying fee > > > > > > > > > could top $6,000. > > > > > > > > > > Ten thousand dollars to see Palin emails reviewed by Palin's > > > > > > > > > legal > > > > > > > > > department? Is it worth it? > > > > > > > > > > Other media outfits have submitted requests for some of > > > > > > > > > Palin's > > > > > > > > > emails > > > > > > > > > (based on subjects). It may be possible to create a > > > > > > > > > consortium of > > > > > > > > > groups to share the costs. I will be talking to > > > > > > > > > representatives of > > > > > > > > > these other organizations to determine if we can work > > > > > > > > > together. And > > > > > > > > > there may be other options. > > > > > > > > > > So stay tuned. Palin has certainly not retreated to Alaska. > > > > > > > > > She > > > > > > > > > recently campaigned for Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of > > > > > > > > > Georgia, > > > > > > > > > during the special election Chambliss ended up winning. "I > > > > > > > > > can't > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
