Mike, Have you wondered how McLeod knows this if they have not yet been seen via her open records request?
As best as I can tell the judge is responding to the verbiage of the charge, and not from personal knowledge that in fact personal email accounts were used for government business. In other words, McLeod is charging this and the judge is ordering emails that fit this criteria must be preserved. But the judge is not saying they actually exist. In fact, I believe the second paragraph proves this to be the case. The judge won't order Palin to stop doing something that he doesn't know is actually being done, so is requesting additional arguments to prove the charge. Apparently the only emails obtained so far that might have proven anything were blacked out for privacy reasons. I would imagine the judge will be given the opportunity to review these emails. Comments such as "It was not widely known that the governor and her staff were using..." are editorial comments and not proven truth. But I appreciate the quote and will reserve judgment on Palin's culpability pending a decision from the judge. So I won't say she didn't, but I don't think it's proven she did. Sorry Mike, that's the best I can do at this time. I'm sure you can understand my desire to wait for the court case to be concluded and a guilty decision rendered before I accept she did this, right? On Dec 15, 10:14 am, Florida Cracker 532 <[email protected]> wrote: > Private Palin Emails Must Be Preserved, Judge > Ruleshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/15/private-palin-emails-must_n_... > ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A state judge reaffirmed Wednesday that government- > related e-mails Gov. Sarah Palin and her staff sent from private > accounts must be preserved and ordered further arguments over whether > to halt the use of such accounts for state business. > > Anchorage Superior Court Judge Craig Stowers refused to immediately > order Palin and her staff to quit using private e-mail accounts for > state work and instead told attorneys in the case to present written > arguments on the propriety of the practice and on which e-mails were > public records. > > Stowers made the decision in a lawsuit brought by Anchorage resident > Andree McLeod against Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee. > > McLeod contends that public records could be lost if the e-mails are > not archived in the state system. > > Palin has occasionally used private e-mail accounts to conduct state > business, and her Yahoo accounts were hacked last month. The hacking > showed that the use of private e-mail accounts could make state > business vulnerable to being exposed. > > It was not widely known that the governor and her staff were using > private e-mail accounts until McLeod filed the first of several open > records requests earlier this year that yielded some of the e-mail > traffic. Alaska officials blacked out much of it, citing privacy > reasons. > > McLeod is suing to preserve the records so they will be available for > her open records request to review the e-mails. > > Her attorney, Don Mitchell, said Wednesday that public access to the > messages is obstructed because they cannot be obtained through > channels set up under public records law. > > Story continues below > ******************************************************************************************** > On Dec 15, 9:37 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Prove it. Don't tell me to Google it, as I already have. You're making > > the accusation, you prove it. Until you do, it's just another one of > > your lies. > > > On Dec 15, 9:23 am, Florida Cracker 532 <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > palin did indeed admit to useing private emails for government > > > bussiness . she admited it during the campain and after ! > > > > On Dec 15, 9:16 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Mike, > > > > > My but you are dense. I will try again. Palin did not admit to using > > > > her private email accounts for government business. I can find no > > > > evidence to suggest she did and despite many requests for you to prove > > > > otherwise, apparently you can't either. > > > > > Get back to me when you find something or when official charges are > > > > filed against Palin. I won't be holding my breath. > > > > > On Dec 15, 3:09 am, Florida Cracker 532 <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > frank if you can prove Palin did not use private email accounts for > > > > > government business after she admitted that had done so please go > > > > > ahead and do it . > > > > > > On Dec 14, 6:23 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Mark, > > > > > > > It's still entertaining. Time and again Mike makes a claim, to which > > > > > > it is easily proven wrong, and rather than address the facts he > > > > > > repeats his same line. > > > > > > > It's be proven by his very own reference that an unborn fetus is > > > > > > alive. Not only can he not mount an argument against the definition > > > > > > but he chids you for questioning a later definition, which is > > > > > > clearly > > > > > > philosophical. > > > > > > > Here it's been proven that Palin has not admitted to using a > > > > > > personal > > > > > > email account for government business and again, he can't defend it, > > > > > > so he repeats the same old line. All I've asked for is a quote or a > > > > > > link to something that proves the evidence exists and Mike can't do > > > > > > it. Milke twists things so badly that he could actually argue that > > > > > > frogs can fly because they eat flies. > > > > > > > What I'd really like to see is someone, such as Hollywood, whom I > > > > > > believe Mike does respect, to jump in here and add his two cents. At > > > > > > least Hollywood takes the time to defend his positions. > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 2:03 pm, mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > frank, arguing is murky is a tee total waste of your time. his > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > mind functions in a reality unknown to sane people. save your > > > > > > > breath. > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 1:05 pm, Florida Cracker 532 <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > sorry frank as much as you would like it not to be true palin > > > > > > > > admitted > > > > > > > > using private emails for government business ! > > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 10:52 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > None. Let's look at what was said; > > > > > > > > > > "A spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign has acknowledged > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > use of private accounts." > > > > > > > > > > She uses personal email accounts. Everyone does. Does it say > > > > > > > > > she > > > > > > > > > acknowledged using them for government business? No.. it's > > > > > > > > > YOU who > > > > > > > > > wants to infer this from the statement. > > > > > > > > > > "As a champion of government accountability > > > > > > > > > and transparency, Governor Palin was exercising an abundance > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > caution to ensure that all state and personal business > > > > > > > > > matters were > > > > > > > > > being kept separate," > > > > > > > > > > Here she is explicitly stating the importance of separating > > > > > > > > > matters of > > > > > > > > > personal business from state. Coming immediately following the > > > > > > > > > acknowledgement that she uses personal email accounts, this > > > > > > > > > HAS to > > > > > > > > > mean she uses personal email accounts for matters of personal > > > > > > > > > business, and her official email accounts for matters > > > > > > > > > pertaining to > > > > > > > > > the state. I'm pretty certain she wouldn't admit to using a > > > > > > > > > personal > > > > > > > > > account for government business and immediately follow that > > > > > > > > > up by > > > > > > > > > stating how she's used an abundance of caution to ensure she > > > > > > > > > didn't do > > > > > > > > > this. Come on Mike, use your head. > > > > > > > > > > She admitted using personal email accounts as does most > > > > > > > > > everyone else > > > > > > > > > these days. She does not admit using personal email accounts > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > government business? Stop telling me to Google this.. I have, > > > > > > > > > extensively, and I find NO EVIDENCE of this. All I'm seeing > > > > > > > > > is more > > > > > > > > > evidence of you being incapable of simple reading > > > > > > > > > comprehension. > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 8:49 am, Florida Cracker 532 > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > what part of she admitted it don't you understand ? > > > > > > > > > > an if you are still having trouble excepting it look on > > > > > > > > > > google . > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 8:39 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me where in the article > > > > > > > > > > > above it shows > > > > > > > > > > > evidence that Palin used her personal email accounts for > > > > > > > > > > > government > > > > > > > > > > > business. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I'm wrong, why have no charges been filed? If I'm > > > > > > > > > > > wrong why was it > > > > > > > > > > > written at motherjones; "her emails--if the legal > > > > > > > > > > > reviewers do not > > > > > > > > > > > censor them for political purposes--might still make > > > > > > > > > > > interesting, and > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps important, reading.". If in fact there was > > > > > > > > > > > evidence they would > > > > > > > > > > > not have written their attack in terms of "might still" > > > > > > > > > > > or "and > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps important"? > > > > > > > > > > > > It is you who will not see. You WANT Palin to be guilty > > > > > > > > > > > so you see > > > > > > > > > > > guilt where none currently exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 3:33 am, Florida Cracker 532 > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > well i guess your answer proves " there are non so > > > > > > > > > > > > blind as those who > > > > > > > > > > > > will not see ? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 4:02 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This doesn't prove a thing. Read it and pay attention > > > > > > > > > > > > > to what is being > > > > > > > > > > > > > said. I take three things away from this; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) "...the suit alleges.". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we have a suit filed by Andrée McLeod that > > > > > > > > > > > > > contends Palin did this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This proves nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) "In one notable e-mail, a Palin aide apologized > > > > > > > > > > > > > for discussing > > > > > > > > > > > > > state business on a public account. "Whoops!" Palin > > > > > > > > > > > > > aide Frank Bailey > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote, after addressing an e-mail to the governor's > > > > > > > > > > > > > official state > > > > > > > > > > > > > address. "Frank, this is not the Governor's personal > > > > > > > > > > > > > account," a > > > > > > > > > > > > > secretary reminded him. ". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the only example cited in this article is an email > > > > > > > > > > > > > that an aide, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank Bailey, wrote. There is still no evidence that > > > > > > > > > > > > > Palin broke the > > > > > > > > > > > > > law. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (3) "A spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign has > > > > > > > > > > > > > acknowledged the > > > > > > > > > > > > > use of private accounts. "As a champion of government > > > > > > > > > > > > > accountability > > > > > > > > > > > > > and transparency, Governor Palin was exercising an > > > > > > > > > > > > > abundance of > > > > > > > > > > > > > caution to ensure that all state and personal > > > > > > > > > > > > > business matters were > > > > > > > > > > > > > being kept separate,"". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So Palin has acknowledged using private email > > > > > > > > > > > > > accounts, which she MUST > > > > > > > > > > > > > do, because by law she can't use her official email > > > > > > > > > > > > > account for > > > > > > > > > > > > > personal emails. Note > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
