Emails of top Obama appointees remain a mystery

Lutherf said:

I have no problem with government employees having multiple email accounts as long as those accounts and their content are disclosed when subpoenaed or in compliance with a valid FOIA request. Government employees should comply with the same laws I have to comply with.

Click to expand...

Exactly

pbrauer said:

Was it okay when Bush did it?

Bush White House email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

that was a long time ago..and what difference, at this point, does it make?

fishinRod said:

that was a long time ago..and what difference, at this point, does it make?

Click to expand...

It makes a huge difference, they were conducting government business on non-government servers which made their emails untraceable through FOIAs.

Zyphlin said:

That was kind of my point. If he's going to ask people "Did you care when Bush did it?!" then he should at least answer the question himself. Being "Selectively outraged" about "selective outrage" is kind of funny to me, which is what I was highlighting.

Click to expand...

Actually his comparison fails because they are different controversies. This is a controversy because some had a separate, nonpublic email account. Bush's was a controversy because it was RNC mailboxes that operated under different rules than what the WH is supposed to for email control. In point of fact though, you can not be overly concerned about these email accounts, as long as they adhere to the law(and so far there is no real evidence otherwise), and still be outraged at what Bush's WH did with the email accounts and it would not be selective outrage because they are different situations.

j-mac said:

Well then, let me clear it up for you....The article outlined the agencies using private e-mails for government business, and I didn't tie it to Obama, in fact I said his administration...Second, you seem to think that this administration can do no wrong, even when it is clearly illegal. And lastly, your attempt to misrepresent the topic here should be considered a derailing of the thread topic, continue that and you will not be welcome in the thread.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

I do think it's an attempt to derail the thread. I'd like to talk about these e-mails and this particular situation--the thread topic, I mean.

pbrauer said:

It makes a huge difference, they were
conducting government business on non-government servers which made their emails untraceable through FOIAs.

Click to expand...

Lol....the Obama administration has been rated as the worst in recent History when it comes to FOIA request.

When the AP asked the Labor Dept, Obama's Labor Dept for the names of people that created these E-mail accounts the Labor Dept said " sure, we'll supply you the information you want, for a million bucks ".

Cmon, Bush isn't the President. We actually have a real corrupt administration here, you need to wake up and stop apologizing for their criminal behaviour.

Redress said:

Actually his comparison fails because they are different controversies. This is a controversy because some had a separate, nonpublic email account. Bush's was a controversy because it was RNC mailboxes that operated under different rules than what the WH is supposed to for email control. In point of fact though, you can not be overly concerned about these email accounts, as long as they adhere to the law(and so far there is no real evidence otherwise), and still be outraged at what Bush's WH did with the email accounts and it would not be selective outrage because they are different situations.

Click to expand...

Correct, I jumped on that one too quickly, they weren't the same situation.

Lutherf said:

I have no problem with government employees having multiple email accounts as long as those accounts and their content are disclosed when subpoenaed or in compliance with a valid FOIA request. Government employees should comply with the same laws I have to comply with.

Click to expand...

How can an FOIA request ask for the contents of an email account that the requester doesn't know exists? Moreover ,how can they be sure of full compliance with their request if they don't know of the email accounts?

pbrauer said:

Can you show where the use of email alias are illegal in the government? Sure they complicate tracking a person's email, but I am not sure the use of them is illegal. The are doing governments business on government servers and that to me is what is important.

Bush Administration Appointees Also Used 'Secret E-mail Addresses' | ThinkProgress

The Associated Press reported Tuesday that some Obama administration officials utilize non-publicly listed e-mail addresses in addition to their publicly listed ones. But a ThinkProgress Freedom of Information Act request revealed that this common practice was also utilized by the George W. Bush administration and in no way shields those accounts from public records laws​

Click to expand...

It's funny how the Democrats spend 8 years attacking Bush as a criminal, and then spend the last 5 years defending Obama as being no worse than Bush...

jmotivator said:

How can an FOIA request ask for the contents of an email account that the requester doesn't know exists? Moreover ,how can they be sure of full compliance with their request if they don't know of the email accounts?

Click to expand...

You make two requests. The first request is for a list of all email addresses used by department personnel to conduct department business. The second is for the transcripts of those accounts.

You will NEVER know that there aren't "secret" accounts unless you run some kind of op to flush them out. Even a request for all the email addresses listed on a given server won't give you accounts hosted by a third party. Your best bet in such a case would be to get enough information on one of the suspects to obtain a warrant and collect their computer(s).

j-mac said:

This is complete Bull! It is corrupt, it is illegal, and it is further evidence that this administration cares very little about the law, or the peoples right to oversee their governments actions.

Click to expand...

Why should I get to know all email addresses of all political appointees? This is a case where I really don't care what the law may or may not say.

Government officials have to conduct all business on these accounts. What kind of lunatic would make those addresses public? I have no problem forcing them to disclose their email accounts for a legitimate investigation, but for a generic FoI request?

There's a phone book if you want to call. The offices are open if you want to visit. There's absolutely no need to provide email addresses which are only going to be used for email bombs.


If anyone disagrees, just post your work email address.

Lutherf said:

You make two requests. The first request is for a list of all email addresses used by department personnel to conduct department business. The second is for the transcripts of those accounts.

You will NEVER know that there aren't "secret" accounts unless you run some kind of op to flush them out. Even a request for all the email addresses listed on a given server won't give you accounts hosted by a third party. Your best bet in such a case would be to get enough information on one of the suspects to obtain a warrant and collect their computer(s).

Click to expand...

Again, how can they hope to confirm that the list of the email addresses they receive is accurate when it's already known that the official uses secret email addresses? As far as I can tell from you and Pete the only criteria you use for that trust is the letter after the officials name.

jmotivator said:

Again, how can they hope to confirm that the list of the email addresses they receive is accurate when it's already known that the official uses secret email addresses? As far as I can tell from you and Pete the only criteria you use for that trust is the letter after the officials name.

Click to expand...

Like I said, you can't be sure but you have to remember that the issue isn't whether or not undisclosed email accounts are being used, it is whether or not there is active unlawful behavior going on. Simply having a third party email account isn't a problem. Using that account to facilitate breaking a law or circumventing an investigation is the problem. Because of that the first thing that needs to be done is to establish a clear case that criminal activity is occurring. Once that has been done then you can start a proper investigation. Up until the point that there is reasonable cause for an investigation everything else is a fishing expedition and fish have no obligation to bite.

jmotivator said:

It's funny how the Democrats spend 8 years attacking Bush as a criminal, and then spend the last 5 years defending Obama as being no worse than Bush...

Click to expand...

It is funny. It's also funny how the Republicans spent 8 years defending Bush and now attack Obama for doing the same things.

Lutherf said:

Like I said, you can't be sure but you have to remember that the issue isn't whether or not undisclosed email accounts are being used, it is whether or not there is active unlawful behavior going on. Simply having a third party email account isn't a problem. Using that account to facilitate breaking a law or circumventing an investigation is the problem. Because of that the first thing that needs to be done is to establish a clear case that criminal activity is occurring. Once that has been done then you can start a proper investigation. Up until the point that there is reasonable cause for an investigation everything else is a fishing expedition and fish have no obligation to bite.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a "third-party account" is. Define please? Here is what I have been told: If I log into my personal Yahoo account during work hours and using my employer's computer, my employer has a right to access that Yahoo account.

pbrauer said:

It makes a huge difference, they were conducting government business on
non-government servers which made their emails untraceable through FOIAs.

Click to expand...

I think you missed his Hillary reference.

nota bene said:

I'm not sure what a "third-party account" is. Define please? Here is what I have been told: If I log into my personal Yahoo account during work hours and using my employer's computer, my employer has a right to access that Yahoo account.

Click to expand...

When I reference "third party accounts" I'm talking about various web based email. As far as your employers checking out your personal yahoo account...I don't know. If you are accessing it from work I suppose that there could be some concern that you are disclosing company information but it's not something I've been involved with.

Lutherf said:

When I reference "third party accounts" I'm talking about various web based email. As far as your employers checking out your personal yahoo account...I don't know. If you are accessing it from work I suppose that there could be some concern that you are disclosing company information but it's not something I've been involved with.

Click to expand...

Please don't lose patience with me for this next dumb question, but when you say "various web-based" e-mail, are you referring to Yahoo, etc., or do you mean the Web version of Outlook? In my office I have Microsoft Outlook, but to connect with my work e-mail at home I have Office Outlook Web Access.

j-mac said:

This is complete Bull! It is corrupt, it is illegal, and it is further evidence that this administration cares very little about the law, or the peoples right to oversee their governments actions.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute this aint the first time such a thing has happened is it?

Lets see, here we have a secret email on government servers that very few people know about. Now if they refuse to hand them over, then you may have a case.. but since they are on government servers, then chances are they cant stop it if all the legal requirements are met. Of course they could "disappear" like under the last administration... which brings me to 6 years ago..

6 years ago we had secret emails made on private non government servers in a direct attempt to hide information, not to mention in direct conflict with the rules and law... and back then it was no problem for the Bush administration and those involved...at least according to the GOP and its backers...

Interesting.....deja vu.

rocket88 said:

It is funny. It's also funny how the Republicans spent 8 years defending Bush and now attack Obama for doing the same things.

Click to expand...

How many of us did you know 10 years ago?

nota bene said:

Please don't lose patience with me for this next dumb question, but when you say "various web-based" e-mail, are you referring to Yahoo, etc., or do you mean the Web version of Outlook? In my office I have Microsoft Outlook, but to connect with my work e-mail at home I have Office Outlook Web Access.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm talking about Gmail, Yahoo, etc. Basically I'm talking about stuff that circumvents your work (or the government department) email server.

Well, if most of these folks didn't have secret accounts, they would never be able to get anything done because of all the crap they would be flooded with. When I worked on the Hill, I couldn't even begin to tell you how much of your taxpayer money was spent just battling the various Madalyn Murray O'Hair-esque rumors that we were inundated with constantly by people who would hear about it at church or wherever and then get upset and contact us by telephone, fax, email, mail, and sometimes in person.

I thought they were using google, but switched to another service since google was sued and required to give everything up?

pbrauer said:

Actually, what Bush did was worse because they used RNC email accounts. At least with Obama is using government email addresses.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

Actually his comparison fails because they are different controversies. This is a controversy because some had a separate, nonpublic email account. Bush's was a controversy because it was RNC mailboxes that operated under different rules than what the WH is supposed to for email control. In point of fact though, you can not be overly concerned about these email accounts, as long as they adhere to the law(and so far there is no real evidence otherwise), and still be outraged at what Bush's WH did with the email accounts and it would not be selective outrage because they are different situations.

Click to expand...

As you say, there are numerous differences. Another seeming difference is one was confined to seemingly White House staff while the other seems to have the potential to span multiple executive agencies across the government and possible attempts to stifle or slow the disclosure of information (the exorbidant price from one agency, 10 others dragging their feet, etc). Just as someone may have found the Bush issue to be a problem but this one not so much, others could perhaps feel that the potential wider reach of this case to be of greater concern than the Bush case. In both cases, those could just be excuses for a person to go "...well that ones DIFFERENT", but you're absolutely right that the two cases have differences and those differences could lead people to have an issue with one but not the other.

However, the person asking the question phrased it in such a way initially, along with the context of that posters history, to imply that one could not legitimately have an issue with this one but not with Bush's. I was wishing to see if that similar attitude extended the other way, which cwas clearly not hte case when he came up with a "Well, that one was *different*" response, failing to acknowledge that there are differences that could lead one to share his nuanced outrage in the opposite direction.

Their either different issues, and thus the imemdiete attempt at screaming hypocrisy was in error...which was part of my point...OR they are comparable, in which case my question about his consistency when just asking it in a one sided fashion that was justified.

Lutherf said:

Yes, I'm talking about Gmail, Yahoo, etc. Basically I'm talking about stuff that circumvents your work (or the government department) email server.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. As I say, my understanding is that my employer has the right to access my Yahoo account if I use it on my work computer, etc.