Kobach's email account

[brewer]

How does this website author know what his "real reason" is?

No idea. I'm not the author and perhaps that's a question you should be asking that guy. Before you do that, though, you might want to check out his credentials here, about halfway down the page.

How does the author know he has "no interest in complying" with federal records retention laws?

This author seems to be making some assumptions.

Not really sure why you seem intent on defending a republican who had four lawsuits against him last year, from the ACLU, regarding voter registration laws. Maybe you aren't, but it doesn't appear that way, given your response to my thread.

Kobach said he wasn't complying in a statement that was made here, so it's not an assumption. And he's still not complying. The fact that he said they (commission members) continue to use their personal emails is proof that they have no intention on complying at all. He reeks of having "no interest in complying" with federal laws. 

---

President Donald Trump’s voter fraud commission came under fire earlier this month when a lawsuit and media reports revealed that the commissioners were using private emails to conduct public business. Commission co-chair Kris Kobach confirmed this week that most of them continue to do so.

After the commission’s most recent meeting, on Tuesday, Kobach confirmed that he plans to continue to use his personal gmail account to conduct commission business. Using his Kansas secretary of state email address, he said, would be a “waste of state resources” as he’s acting as a private citizen on the commission and not in his role as secretary of state.

bolding mine

---

It's not an assumption when he outright confirms that Kobach is going to keep on using his personal email account. I would think that the reporter that you are accusing of making such assumptions, was smart enough to do his homework and utilize a bit of fact checking before writing the article. Especially when there has been lawsuits aimed at that commission about this very thing: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kris...2c4a8d1dbd

But Kobach’s use of a private email account and his refusal to release messages underscores the extent to which he has gone to block the public from viewing his work on changes to federal voting laws. Experts have warned that Kobach’s use of a private email account could violate federal and state statutes governing disclosure.

Bolding mine.

Seven different Lawsuits surrounding President Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

But hey, what do I know? I just purposefully started a thread, posting a weak-ass article because I wanted to point out that republicans are illegally using personal email accounts to conduct government business. The same fucking thing they accused Hillary of doing.

JFC, facing seven different lawsuits, clearly, "integrity" is an issue for these people. 

Oh look. 

---

Further down in that same article from the Huffington post link:

In addition to his work on Trump’s commission, Kobach has come under separate scrutiny for shielding efforts to bring about changes to existing federal voting laws.

In response to a separate lawsuit brought by the ACLU challenging a Kansas law requiring people to prove their citizenship to vote, Kobach has gone to great lengths to urge a federal judge to keep sealed two documents detailing his proposed changes to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a 1993 federal law requiring motor vehicle agencies and some other state agencies to provide opportunities to register to vote. He initially refused to even turn over the documents in the court case, but was eventually forced to do so by a federal judge and got sanctioned for misleading the court about the contents of the documents.

A judge is still considering a request to unseal the documents. One is a memo circulated in his office detailing changes and the other is a document he brought to a meeting with Trump last November. In court filings, Kobach’s lawyers have said the public does not need to see the documents and that making them public would make it more difficult for him to advise Trump.
But one email made public in the litigation showed Kobach using a private email account to email a Trump transition official the day after election day saying he was already working on amendments to NVRA to allow states to impose a proof of citizenship requirement when people register to vote. Critics seized on that revelation as a reason to question Kobach’s impartiality in helping to lead a national voter fraud commission.

Bold mine.

---

Seems Kobach has a habit of being dishonest on epic levels. Being a citizen of this country, who fully exercises her right to vote, that's none of my business though. 

Different article for this thread. Didn't read the articles for the other thread. My comment in the other thread was a joke image, nice try. 

What your issue, my comments are valid?

I'm really not trying to argue with you over the credibility of a short article Mh, but since you asked, my issue is that I guess I'm not understanding your point of questioning the author's authenticity for this article when I didn't see you doing it for the other article, which he helped write. In fact, I didn't really see your meme as a joke, rather I saw it as you stood in agreement with that article. Now you're admitting you didn't even read that article so what makes me think you actually read the one I posted? 

FWIW, I probably wasted my time compiling this post because you won't be bothered to read any of the articles that I cited.

Your questions could have very easily been answered on your own, had you put in the time to discover those answers yourself. Took me less time than it did with me trying to write this response to you. The author of the article is credible. I posted a link directing you to his credentials and as you can see, I have provided you with other links and quoted some parts of the articles in those links backing up statements his whopping two paragraph article. Nice try.

I regard that Voter Fraud Commission as a conduit for government voting data to the FSB.

---

Perhaps you should answer his questions. They're fair.

Actually, they weren't fair, but in the interest of providing further information to prove the author wasn't making "assumptions", I did answer them, as you can see above. I'm sorry I didn't do it sooner, but I was sleeping. That's a thing I don't get much of lately. 

The tl;dr version of this: I don't like arguing with my friends and I showed more proof than I actually needed to, but a point had to be made.

I questioned the author, not you. 

I notice that you did all of this work after. And the other articles you site use words like "could" and "appear", not accusing.

Putting the cart before the horse in politics does not help.

BTW, I think this commission is a joke and waste of money, not defending it at all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, they weren't fair, but in the interest of providing further information to prove the author wasn't making "assumptions", I did answer them, as you can see above.

I think his questions were fair. I think it's important to ask questions like that of all media, no matter who the story is about.

[Joods]

No idea. I'm not the author and perhaps that's a question you should be asking that guy. Before you do that, though, you might want to check out his credentials here, about halfway down the page.


Not really sure why you seem intent on defending a republican who had four lawsuits against him last year, from the ACLU, regarding voter registration laws. Maybe you aren't, but it doesn't appear that way, given your response to my thread.

Kobach said he wasn't complying in a statement that was made here, so it's not an assumption. And he's still not complying. The fact that he said they (commission members) continue to use their personal emails is proof that they have no intention on complying at all. He reeks of having "no interest in complying" with federal laws. 

---

bolding mine

---

It's not an assumption when he outright confirms that Kobach is going to keep on using his personal email account. I would think that the reporter that you are accusing of making such assumptions, was smart enough to do his homework and utilize a bit of fact checking before writing the article. Especially when there has been lawsuits aimed at that commission about this very thing: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kris...2c4a8d1dbd


Bolding mine.

Seven different Lawsuits surrounding President Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

But hey, what do I know? I just purposefully started a thread, posting a weak-ass article because I wanted to point out that republicans are illegally using personal email accounts to conduct government business. The same fucking thing they accused Hillary of doing.

JFC, facing seven different lawsuits, clearly, "integrity" is an issue for these people. 

Oh look. 

---

Further down in that same article from the Huffington post link:

Bold mine.

---

Seems Kobach has a habit of being dishonest on epic levels. Being a citizen of this country, who fully exercises her right to vote, that's none of my business though. 


I'm really not trying to argue with you over the credibility of a short article Mh, but since you asked, my issue is that I guess I'm not understanding your point of questioning the author's authenticity for this article when I didn't see you doing it for the other article, which he helped write. In fact, I didn't really see your meme as a joke, rather I saw it as you stood in agreement with that article. Now you're admitting you didn't even read that article so what makes me think you actually read the one I posted? 

FWIW, I probably wasted my time compiling this post because you won't be bothered to read any of the articles that I cited.

Your questions could have very easily been answered on your own, had you put in the time to discover those answers yourself. Took me less time than it did with me trying to write this response to you. The author of the article is credible. I posted a link directing you to his credentials and as you can see, I have provided you with other links and quoted some parts of the articles in those links backing up statements his whopping two paragraph article. Nice try.


Actually, they weren't fair, but in the interest of providing further information to prove the author wasn't making "assumptions", I did answer them, as you can see above. I'm sorry I didn't do it sooner, but I was sleeping. That's a thing I don't get much of lately. 

The tl;dr version of this: I don't like arguing with my friends and I showed more proof than I actually needed to, but a point had to be made.

I questioned the author, not you. 

I notice that you did all of this work after. And the other articles you site use words like "could" and "appear", not accusing.

Putting the cart before the horse in politics does not help.

BTW, I think this commission is a joke and waste of money, not defending it at all.

I highly doubt the author is ever going to see your questions in this thread. 

I did the work because you questioned the integrity and validity of the original article, so it was necessary to expound on it. Lawsuits are accusatory in nature. One party is accusing another party of doing something illegal. That's how lawsuits come about. And seven lawsuits against this guy all for similar things is saying a lot. 

And yeah - that whole commission is a joke when one considers the fact that Kobach has attempted to do some damn shady things to the federal forms that are used for people registering to vote. It's not surprising that the orange shit gibbon wanted him to co-chair that farce of a commission. 

But again - my entire point of posting the original article to begin with was to show the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality of repubes when it comes to emails and Hillary.