What is Digg?254 Comments
- inactive, on 09/10/2008, -23/+184Yep, she's got those Republican ethics, which is to say NONE.
- AmericanElitist, on 09/10/2008, -21/+119Palin’s move is eerily reminiscent of Bush administration ploys to dramatically increase secrecy in government, such as when White House aides switched to personal e-mail accounts to avoid subpoenas during the investigation into U.S. Attorney scandal last year:
- apastafarian, on 09/10/2008, -16/+113Nothing to see here. She was against e-mail before she was for it. Anyway:
Lipstick on a pig....Lipstick On A Pig....LIPSTICK ON A PIG!!!
Besides, doesn't everyone know it's sexist to even utter Palin's name unless it's preceded. by "I love you"? - t3rmv3locity, on 09/11/2008, -7/+68Governors DO NOT get executive privilege. (presidents shouldn't either)
If the FBI or a federal court received/issued a subpoena against Palin (which may be done because I doubt Yahoo's headquarters are in Alaska), the state (constitutionally speaking) would have lost jurisdiction, and whatever BS claims of executive privilege would just be transformed into Contempt of Court citations.
Federal Law > State Law. - solistus, on 09/11/2008, -4/+46This from the politician who ran her 2006 campaign almost exclusively on a "clean up state government" / government transparency platform. Now we see questionable firings and promotions, a "rhetorical" question to a librarian what she would do if Palin requested to ban books, opposition to any sex ed beyond preaching abstinence (which clearly worked so well for Bristol), records being sealed off... Remind me why she seems like a remotely acceptable or qualified candidate to almost half the country again? Is it her foreign policy experience (she's awful close to Russia)? Her military leadership (she commands her own military... until they're called into action at which point they start answering directly to the DoD and she learns about their deployment, by her own admission, by watching the news)? Her economic leadership (a windfall tax and a rebate check much closer in distribution to Obama's tax plan than McCain's, managing to keep a state budget balanced while her state's oil revenues ballooned from 40% to 85% of the state's revenue)? Oh, I forgot. She's a pitbull with lipstick. But not a pig, you sexist!
- inactive, on 09/11/2008, -13/+54What is Palin hiding? If she need to hide something from America then she hates America, and she hates our troops.
- shcforward, on 09/11/2008, -6/+45They are just worried that someone will see the racist joke emails they forwarded around.
- canvashinder, on 09/11/2008, -3/+33Ok it is time to stop playing with the Palin smoke and go after the Man behind the green curtain.
- Khast, on 09/11/2008, -7/+36If a Democrat had a personal e-mail account they used while in office the Republicans would cry foul... It's called hypocritical thinking. Suits her quite well.
- HappyScrappy, on 09/11/2008, -2/+31Executive privilege already? More of the same it seems. Very sad.
- Bith8654, on 09/11/2008, -6/+33It's only "smart" if you have something to hide.
- kiwiboyus, on 09/11/2008, -4/+31She is representing the Republican Party and she is showing that Republicans fear accountability.
- oldhick, on 09/11/2008, -3/+29That's not the issue. Its the other way around. She's using her personal e-mail account (which the public can't access) for work.
What's funnier though is that analysts are calling government email "secure"... Ha.. - thesubs, on 09/11/2008, -5/+26Seems to be one of the things you learn in your first 2 years in a Republican environment...
- Insightful, on 09/11/2008, -2/+20This reminds me of Julie MacDonald, who was appointed to head the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species program before she reisgned in disgrace.
Her problem? MacDonald has not back ground as a biologist, rejected staff scientists’ recommendations, presented industry positions as equivalent to scientific studies, put political pressure on lower-ranking employees who were deciding endangered species cases. I know what you are thinking - sounds just like a typical Bush appointee like heckauva-job Brownie at FEMA, right?
Well, beside sending classified information about environmental protection to several Chevron executives, McDonald also forwarded classified information to someone she met in World of Warcraft.
Seriously, how hard is it to conduct official governmental business on official government e-mail and not forward it to your husband? - thuang513, on 09/11/2008, -3/+21send spam to gov.sarah@yahoo.com!
- DephexTwin, on 09/11/2008, -3/+20Good point, AmericanParty. It was a mistake for the Obama campaign to pick Detroit's mayor for the VP slot. Oh wait, they didn't.
- theviceroy, on 09/11/2008, -1/+16right, except when you aren't a member of the executive branch of the federal government... then it means jack *****.
- kiwiboyus, on 09/11/2008, -4/+18If she has nothing to hide she should just release them right? Isn't that how it goes, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear Sarah. Live up to your "maverick" claims.
- Branchex, on 09/11/2008, -0/+14That is what I'm saying, if they are given a work e-mail address then that is the only address that should be used for work.
- pintomp3, on 09/11/2008, -4/+17guess what? i'm not voting for him either.
- darkciti2, on 09/11/2008, -4/+17They were using it for "professional use".
They are employees of We The People. They are now lying to us about their job performance.
They will be appropriately replaced on November 4th, 2008. - GroundhogBoy, on 09/11/2008, -4/+16Well, when people say things like "I don't like his name" (as I heard a relative say this past Christmas in PA), what are we supposed to think? Or when 15-20% of the population admits that race plays a part in some of these swing states?
- Cinmngirl70, on 09/11/2008, -2/+14Wouldn't it be sweet if one of the telecoms had to turn the emails over? :D
- newl, on 09/11/2008, -0/+13Someone apparently failed in their understanding of the checks and balances education.
That being said, if a personal account is strictly personal, the government should have no say on what is inside. However, if, as the article is indicating, the personal account is being used for state of federal use, the account then becomes a matter of public record in my opinion. - kiwiboyus, on 09/11/2008, -2/+13She does have the option to release them and if there is nothing to hide why shouldn't she, right?
- stinkymonkey, on 09/11/2008, -2/+13When does this executive privilege ***** stop. How about the Mayor level? How about the Chief of Police?, then the school principle, then the teachers, then the janitor. Its just ***** insane. If you work in government, for the people, you are an open book, which is intended to stop corruption.
Everyday, this women is sounding more sleazy and corrupt. - kiwiboyus, on 09/11/2008, -3/+14Yet another blind eye. Buried.
- DephexTwin, on 09/11/2008, -1/+12@TacticalPenguin
There's a reason that people who aren't in public office are called "private citizens". *Public* officials, especially those in some of the highest profile positions in the country, shouldn't expect to have the same privacy as me. Transparency is important in our government and if she had nothing to hide, then she was an idiot for mixing personal and official email while she was in a public office.
She won't go to jail for asserting the rights that you and I have, but she sure as heck should be penalized politically for it. - lazyslacker, on 09/11/2008, -3/+13They call it a "public" office for a reason. People that hold office should willfully relinquish anything that's asked of them. I need to trust my public servant fully if I'm going to be comfortable with them making decisions that will effect me. If they don't want to tell me something and claim it's "personal", I can't be confident that the person in question has my own or society's best interests at heart.
- themonkman, on 09/11/2008, -2/+12It was just relayed by the Washington Post, which is a fairly reputable news source. Trooper77's comment = buried.
- twiztidsinz, on 09/11/2008, -1/+10Exactly why she should.
Republicans started that mess, let them reap what they sow. - inactive, on 09/11/2008, -3/+11I got it from John McCain, just reversed the political parties there jackass.
- StarlessKnight, on 09/11/2008, -0/+8@kinoff: Then you obviously haven't been paying attention recently; and no, it's not the worst argument you've ever heard because moolaismyfriend isn't arguing anything, they're mocking people who actually believe "If not X then Y hates America and our Troops" which was a popular "argument" over the last 6-7 years.
- scrtyfrk, on 09/11/2008, -2/+10This is some ridiculous circumvention of the law. The fact that they are using personal e-mail addresses other than government controlled to carry out their official duties should be enough to prove they think they are guilty of something (guilty mind). How it does not rise to that level is beyond me.
- bjornski, on 09/11/2008, -0/+8Well, the way to look at it is that anything being done on a personal account was an attempt to talk "off the record".
And since they're "off the record", and apparently personal business, they are NOT able to be covered by her "executive privilege" claims. If she's claiming that her personal e-mail gives her protection from scrutiny, and then still says she's using it for state business, that's clearly a big issue.
If she's sending government correspondence to someone outside the government (her husband), that's a big no-no also. I'm sure it's actually common, but it should be able to be scrutinized. If you're doing "official" business through a Yahoo! account, you're obviously doing it to speak "off the record" and avoid public accountability.
We don't need 4 more years of that. - facelesscoward, on 09/11/2008, -3/+11Yeah, that's what happens when you lift arguments straight from Republicans and remove a little fluff. They sound stupid.
(That was also the point.) - savagesteve13, on 09/11/2008, -1/+9How dare you question her ethics!!!!! Republicans are above criticism!!! Democrats are mean and nasty by providing truth!!!
You are all going to put her in the White House by criticizing her ethics violations and illegal activities!!!!
How dare you question McCain!!! How dare you question his affiliation with lobbyists!!! How dare you point out that he was responsible for the S&L lincoln bank scandal that cost US taxpayers 50 billion dollars!!!! - lazyfisherman, on 09/11/2008, -2/+10The problem is when a public servant mixes personal emails (which nobody needs to see) with professional emails (which everyone has a RIGHT to see) and conducting official business using a personal email account.
Don't know what Palin was doing but I know of too many corrupt civil servants and public sector administrators who deliberately use their personal (non-governmental) email accounts to do official business and then claim a right to privacy when the public asks for certain emails. - xxpor, on 09/11/2008, -1/+8January 20, 2009*
- borninda818, on 09/11/2008, -1/+8Dugg for making me laugh. Haven't seen that word used in a while.
- echriswa, on 09/11/2008, -1/+8The truth shall set you free...unless you're guilty.
- Gabberwok, on 09/11/2008, -2/+8At least we know this will never be a problem with John McCain - I'm not sure he even knows what email is....
- ph1sh55, on 09/11/2008, -2/+8Let's just say I would find it odd if my boss insisted I sent specific work-related emails via and to 'personal' email addresses rather than through work email addresses. That's not normal behavior in a work environment, common sense says something is up. Whether this article has substance or not is another matter. She could be sending HILARIOUS FW: FW: FW: emails. :)
- Linua, on 09/11/2008, -3/+9Yet everyone complained when they tried to privatize SOCIAL SECURITY....
social this, social that, doesn't matter anymore, it's already here, and been here for decades.
Face it, you're hypocrites republicans. - inactive, on 09/11/2008, -0/+6you know, you may be EXACTLY right on that one.. let's start a rumor, i'll write times, you write the huffpost...
- inactive, on 09/11/2008, -1/+7dugg because it was funny fail because you spelled it wrong.
- lazyfisherman, on 09/11/2008, -1/+7The problem is when a public servant mixes personal emails (which nobody needs to see) with professional emails (which everyone has a RIGHT to see) and conducting official business using a personal email account.
Don't know what Palin was doing but I know of too many corrupt civil servants and public sector administrators who deliberately use their personal (non-governmental) email accounts to do official business and then claim a right to privacy when the public asks for certain emails. - pintomp3, on 09/11/2008, -7/+13republicans: please respect our privacy, while we invade yours.
- bjornski, on 09/11/2008, -0/+6Her state business is open to scrutiny, as a "public servant".
If she's doing state business on a personal, "off the record" system, she's obviously trying to do her state business "off the record".
If she's using that account for state business, it should be viewable as a state account. -
Show 51 - 100 of 258 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is