You remember the kid who hacked Sarah Palin’s email? Apparently, they caught him.
The kid (David Kernell) turned himself in, and has plead innocent. Oh, and he’s the son of a Tennessee Democrat. Still, though- innocent 'til proven guilty, right?
You know, when my email was hacked years ago, the only recourse I had was to open a new account. Nobody tracked down the hacker, and even if I’d found the guy, he wouldn’t have spent any time in jail. I guess it helps to have friends in high places.
He certainly wouldn’t have been brought into court in handcuffs and shackles, as David Kernell was. I guess Kernell, by turning himself in, has shown himself to be a massive flight risk.
So, uh, when is Palin going to be called on the carpet for using personal email for official business?
Are shackles normal for cases like this? Perhaps “flight risk” was a bad phrase to choose- I guess they expected him to, I don’t know, run from the court.
Hell, there’s nothing normal about this case. Email accounts are hacked all the time- how many arrests are made as a result?
Don’t get me wrong- I think what the kid (allegedly) did was wrong, bad, and stupid. However, is there normally ANY sort of investigation when an email account, especially a Yahoo account, is hacked? In my experience, you can’t even get customer service to respond with anything other than, “make a new account”.
And you’ve not even mentioned that Palin shouldn’t have been using that email in the first place.
"The screenshots feature a July e-mail between Palin and Alaska Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell, an e-mail sent to Palin staffer Ivy Frye from an anonymous member telling her that Palin’s password had been changed, captures of Palin’s inbox, and an e-mail from Amy McCorkell, who serves on the Governor’s Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. "
If the e-mail between Palin and Parnell was, “Sean: I am directing your office to submit updated budget reports for the 2009 FY, and highlight all items that could be impacted by falling home prices in the greater Juneau area,” then I agree.
If the e-mail was, “Sean – did you catch Keeping Up with the Kardashians last night? Wasn’t it funny when Khloe did that thing in the kitchen?” then it’s a perfectly legitimate use of a personal e-mail account.
So I ask again: was there official business e-mail in the account?
"According to the Guardian, who has looked at the Wikileaks data, among the emails in Palin’s account were several from addresses belonging to her aides, including a draft letter to California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a discussion of nominations to the state court of appeals, and several bearing “DPS”, the acronym for the Alaska Department of Public Safety. "
Is that good enough for you, Bricker? Is that enough for the matter to be even looked into? Or do you need me to go grab the actual emails now?
What I need is a clear and unambiguous statement that the e-mails were state business and not personal. It’s not enough to say, “Hey, these were from her aides,” or even “These were from the Lt. Governor,” because that alone doesn’t mean squat.
The response above is the first description that gets close, and even then… “several bearing ‘DPS’” means nothing; and depending on the contents of the letter to Schwarzenegger, that too may mean nothing.
In other words, just saying who they are from, or to, is irrelevant and useless.
And then… “a discussion of nominations to the state court of appeals” with who? Her husband? Her friend from high school? Then it’s not business. What did it say? “Judge Jones – you know, the one that’s up for nomination? You know he watches the Kardashians show too, right?” Then it’s not business.
What you need to be able to say is that there’s an e-mail in the account that BOTH (a) meaningfully discussed official business, and (b) was written to an legitimate government official about that business.
So far, you’ve danced around that with vague words that strongly hint at guilt, but don’t actually come out and say it. Usually, when I see weasel words like that, I think that someone’s preparing a future defense of, “Well, technically, I didn’t actually accuse her of X…”
So, AGAIN: was there official business e-mail in the account?