come on back when you can find anything i made up sparky ! mean while like it or not palin used private emails for government business . On Dec 13, 2:05 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, > > Considering your penchant for making stuff up, I'm not counting on you > using that information any time soon. > > As for there being "no question that palin used yahoo and other email > accounts for government emails".. perhaps you have no question, but > then again, you'll accept any story as long as it's anti-Palin, so I'm > not surprised. > > Fact is, I did Google this and it came up empty. I've searched for > quotes, I've searched for charges, I've searched for copies of emails > that would prove this and all I can find are people such as you making > the accusation but never substantiating it. I guess you guys think if > you repeat the lie often enough it will make it true. > > You might want to try employing some common sense. Do you really think > motherjones would have written "her emails--if the legal reviewers do > not censor them for political purposes--might still make interesting, > and perhaps important, reading." if evidence existed? And how can > legal reviewers censor them if they're already out there? Duh! > > I don't suppose you're going to actually prove Palin admitted to this > by providing a link, are you? ...I didn't think so. > > On Dec 13, 3:16 am, mike 532 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > wow! gee thanks for sharing that information with me it might come in > > handy some day . now let me share something with you there is no > > question that palin used yahoo and other email accounts for government > > emails she has admitted doing so during the campaign the only question > > is what was she trying to hide when she did so . if you really want > > her exact quote when she admitted her actions you might try googling > > it . > > > On Dec 12, 5:14 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
