That depends. Are they conducting official business via those e-mails, essentially circumventing transparency laws? Is the hacker simply invading their privacy or acting with more ill intent (be it juvenile or malicious)? They’re both bad, of course, but is what this guy did worthy of a felony?
That there was enough for any reasonable person to agree that an investigation was warranted … yes.
Or to quote you: “there [was] no really reasonable inference except that of improper use of mail.”
Here’s why I disagree: every single description of the e-mails danced around the specifics. 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.
Are you telling me that there’s no reasonable inference to an e-mail between Palin and Parnell except that it’s official business? Why? Why couldn’t it have been personal? What makes it so strongly likely that it’s business that it’s the only reasonable inference? Are Palin and Parnell personal friends? Are Palin and McCorkell? Why couldn’t those have been social e-mails?
The most reasonable inference is that it is official business. My boss has my email adress. Of the emails he’s sent me, roughly 95% of them have been official business. Why is it reasonable to assume that a boss emailing a subordinate is *not *of official business.
But I’m growing tired of picking nits with you. On the surface it looks like a certain level of misuse of email took place as it applies to official government business. Just playing devils advocate (to give you the benefit of the doubt) doesn’t excuse that.
I have no cite, but “my gut” tells me that the mere fact that Obama/Biden’s personal email getting hacked would be enough to launch “outrage” several threads on this board, and that the Justice Department would be just as quick to catch the evildoers.
(Remember when some candidates passport info got leaked? I think it was Obama’s passport… There was a scramble to catch that person, too.)
That was my only point.
And it was in response to the point I thought you were making, which was: That this was selective outrage on the Republican side (aided, presumadely, by a compliant Justice Department).
I stated no opinion on the treatment of the incident by the Justice department, nor about Palin’s (potential) misuse of her own personal email account.
Do I feel that my personal email is going to receive nearly the same level of priority from the Justice Department? No, I don’t. But my emails aren’t going to affect the country like the Presidential election will, either. shrug
It’s about the same reasonable inference as “the man has marajuana, therefore it’s illegal” in a state that allows marajuana for medicinal reasons.
Yeah. 95% of the time it’s going to be illegal — but you don’t get to press charges on the ground that it’s usally illegal.
My boss has my e-mail address at work and my e-mail address at home. I get several e-mails a week from her that have little or nothing to do with business at my personal address, and requests for my analysis of new business proposals comes to my work address.
And now you’re shifting the goalposts.
Now it seems you agree there were other reasonable inferences, but the MOST reasonable one was improper use.
So that 5% mean it should be ignored completely?
Oh for fucks sake.
If I concede that there’s the slimmest of possiblities that Palin was emailing her Lt Governor for manicure techniques, will you concede that she probably wasn’t? That on the surface an email to her Lt Governor from a fucking Yahoo account looks pretty stupid on her part?
Who am I kiddin? Of course you won’t. Wouldn’t want to leave a nit unpicked.
But see, that’s the problem, in my eyes.
If the manhunt for the hacker is justified, that implies that the emails were important enough to be official State business- in which case Palin should be in trouble for using a personal email account.
Or…
The emails were personal, which implies that the manhunt for the hacker was a ridiculous use of official expense and effort which the “normal guy” has no access to.
Palin’s trying to get it both ways- she’s saying her email is important enough that the hacker must be found and prosecuted, but not so important that the emails should be part of the public record.
But don’t you get to investigate whether the possession of the marijuana is legal or not?
Ahhh… the Lawyer Dance.
Hey, the original claim was definitive and certain:
Now suddenly it’s “should be looked into.”
Not at all. Even her personal e-mails could affect the Presidential race.
OK, but what is the penalty for failure to do so?
For example, it is against the law to :
Murder somone
and
Park in an area with an expired meter
There are also laws without any legal penalties at all, or so I have heard.
Is this the equivilant of a cop taking bribe money from a drug dealer or taking a free cup of coffee? Does it call from criminal sanctions or is it something that your boss sez “Hey Bob, you may not know this, but you’re not supposed to do that. Don’t do it again, OK?”
Where the HELL did I imply that?
Yeah, 'cause this is the Pit. I would’ve been a lot more careful with my words had this been, say, Great Debates. I would’ve thought you’d know how things work around here, after all these years.
So is it your assertion that there’s no call at all to “look into” whether Palin used a personal email address for State business?
It’s not her decision whether emails should be saved, if there’s a chance those emails need to be saved. That’s why *all *emails on official servers are saved, and why she should have avoided even the appearance of impropriety.
If her “personal” emails affect the Presidential race, then those emails are no longer “personal”.
I apologize, Fish- I clearly misinterpreted your post. I suspect I wasn’t the only one to do so, as well.
Calm down. You didn’t. Just making a point.