|
SternSkipper -> RE: Alaska To Release Gov. Palin`s Emails (6/2/2011 1:15:59 PM)
|
QUOTING OWNER59
quote:
Wait....
Why would that be?
You`re assuming that there`s something damaging in them.
Why is that?
The opposition is probably assuming that there are at least artifacts that show she grossly misused her authority when she ordered that department head to use his authority over the state police to fire that trooper. OR WORSE.
The question as to whether email is protected or private communication has already been decided by the supreme court. An employer MAY read and/or use information contained within those emails. Now, since the people of Alaska are really the only people who could be deemed "employers" of the former governor, and the current governor is imminently qualified to determine that it represents no threat to the people of the state or it's facilities and agencies. Then WHY NOT?
I don't see why anyone clearly outside the state has a voice in the issue. I admit curiosity, But I certainly don't have any desire to PLAY MAKE-BELIEVE and pretend there should be some kind of Clarence Darrow-esque case mounted to protect this communication. Especially following the DISINGENUOUS move attacking the right of the public to know here and standing down when it's a democrat's so-called privacy at stake. Hell, while I will certainly express how stupid I think the weiner case is, I will definitely not bite off some inane argument that we even care about the matter. But I sure as hell don't think that he enjoys much protected communication on something as fucked security-wise as Twitter or Facebook for that matter.
And I believe that a Governor's communications become part of the state archives and in most cases, you can at least view every document in a redacted format. I also know from RI's record keeping and court cases that occured during the RISDEC Crisis that the communications that went between Ed Diprete and his confederates were only redacted to protect matters effecting public safety and the security of the state itself. All his criminality evidenced in those emails was completely available for viewing. So what's the difference here?
Is it because when you're "just a soccer-mom who saw something wrong and decided to fix it", you enjoy some kind of endangered species. And I guess she's just got lawyers up there OPPOSING it for good clean fun.
I will say that if she has an email in there talking about pulling a chew and screw on the people of Alaska for the big bucks, it's going to make a nice arrow in the quiver who want to prove she is a complete and utter con-woman who is just playing a confidence game with Americans who are in earnest suffering from true feelings of disenfranchisement which is never mind scummy, it's obscene. And those standing around playing with their dicks saying "aw it's nothing" or "she's just doing what anyone else would do and going for the bucks", just aren't worth the bytes they type out.
|
|
|
|
