Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Thats odd...and I thought it was a Republican majority committee (8R-4D) that voted 12-0 to initiate the ethical investigation and a Republican majority committee (3R-2D) conducting the investigation and issuing subpoenas....
|
You seem to be much more partisan than I am. I believe Republicans and Democrats can abuse power.
Quote:
|
and that, on the issue of e-mails, that ethics laws and open records laws are justification for questioning and examining personal e-mails as part of that investigation, if in the course of the investigation, there is even a possibility that such e-mails were used in an "official capacity."
|
I thought I made it clear that I disagreed with the law regarding private emails specifically and I generally favor a person's right to privacy and being protected from undue searches and seizures.
Quote:
|
Otherwise, what is to prevent any governor (or any elected official) from hiding e-mail "conversations" concerning actions in an official capacity that he/she would rather not see the light of day by simply using a private e-mail account?
|
Nothing, but I pointed to the fact that emails could be used but so can other forms of communication - why the big deal with emails compared to other forms of communication? Ultimately, I look at actual decisions and actions, I suggest we let that be the primary determining factor of illegal activity. If I fire someone without the legal authority, what difference does it make what my emails say. The facts that the person was fired and I did not have the authority are the key points, everything else is somewhat trivial.
Quote:
|
Hacking the e-mails is illegal and an invasion of privacy......requesting all potentially relevant e-mails on any account the governor maintained (and issuing subpoenas if necessary) is a legitimate part of such an investigation.
|
Or, it can be a fishing exhibition under the guise of an investigation. I prefer our laws error on the side of protecting privacy.
Quote:
|
But then, its much easier to simply claim "politically motivated fishing expedition."
|
I think it is wrong when either party does it. Are you suggesting "politically motivated fishing expeditions" don't happen? If they do what is your position on protecting people from this type of abuse of power?
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 10 : 42 : 43-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
If the kid did it...prosecute him..even investigate if he was part of a larger "conspiracy"
My objection is characterizing the entire investigation as a partisan politically motivated fishing expedition as was suggested here..and continues to be the central talkiing point on the issue by the McCain/Palin campaign and their surrogate talking heads.
|
My objection is when people pretend that the potential for abuse of power does not exist or does not happen. My objection is when people assume one party is always guilty of abuse of power in some cases with no evidence and the other party is always righteous and is victimized by the other party.
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 10 : 46 : 04-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paq
One issue with conducting official state business on personal accounts: it's never recorded. For instance, if i were doing some weird research in 10 -30 yrs about palin as gov of alaska, a TON of useful info that is in the personal account would not be available to me.
|
A) what happened before emails?
B) An email sent is received by another party who could make the email public at some later date.
Quote:
|
So, it's not on the up and up, let's just say. Also, after the secretive bush/cheney whitehouse, i'm ready for someone who isn't afraid to show what they are doing/discussing.
|
To suggest that the Bush/Chaney administration has been more secretive than the typical presidential administration is to ignore history.