Kobach's email account

[Joods]

After all the hating on Hillary for her email scandal take a look here at what I found thanks to a link in another thread: 

Kobach is using a personal email account

One might think that any politician who paid the slightest bit of attention to the 2016 election might be wary of using a personal email account for government business. But Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who is the vice chairman of Donald Trump's voter fraud commission, is  a personal Gmail account and intends to continue to do so. His argument is that he is on the commission as a private citizen, not as a Kansas official, so there is no problem using his Gmail account for commission work. His real reason for doing so is that Gmail accounts are not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Consequently, public interest groups cannot sue to get them. ProPublica has said that since he is working on a government commission, private citizen or not, he must comply with federal records retention laws, but clearly he has no interest in complying and it is unlikely that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is going to do anything to make him.

One thing that Kobach is probably not thinking about (but should be) is the possibility of emails leaking. Probably only one or two people had access to Hillary Clinton's email server and nothing leaked. A Gmail account is very different. Dozens, maybe hundreds, of system administrators and other Google employees no doubt have access to all the Gmail accounts. They need that access to keep the servers running. Of course, they are strictly forbidden by company policy from leaking any emails sent using the service, but sometimes stuff happens. It's also worth noting that part of what kept Clinton's mail server (reasonably?) safe was the fact that virtually nobody knew it existed; this is sometimes called "security through obscurity." On the other hand, everyone knows about Gmail, and now everyone knows that Kobach has an account. That makes him quite a juicy target for ill-doers worldwide, as well as insiders. (V)

Comments in 3...2...1...

[Minimalist]

"It's DIFFERENT when we do it."

[The Valkyrie]

It's only a bad thing, against the law, when others do it.

Well, only if those others are part of the opposition.

[Minimalist]

Still seems to me that Hillary's email server was about the only one in Washington that wasn't hacked.  She should give lessons.

[brewer]

How does this website author know what his "real reason" is? How does the author know he has "no interest in complying" with federal records retention laws?

This author seems to be making some assumptions.

[Joods]

How does this website author know what his "real reason" is? How does the author know he has "no interest in complying" with federal records retention laws?

This author seems to be making some assumptions.

Considering you commented on that same website here and didn't have any problems with it, why take issue with it now?

[brewer]

How does this website author know what his "real reason" is? How does the author know he has "no interest in complying" with federal records retention laws?

This author seems to be making some assumptions.

Considering you commented on that same website here and didn't have any problems with it, why take issue with it now?

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?

[Minimalist]

Since 2014 it has been a law.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...etary.html

Under a law passed this past November, a government official can use private email accounts to conduct government business—but only if that official copies or forwards the email to his or her government account within 20 days. Violating that law can result in disciplinary action but carries with it no criminal penalties. But Clinton’s private emailing occurred well before that law went into effect. According to the National Archives, the official definition of what constitutes a federal record did not “clearly include electronic records” until Obama signed the 2014 law, which represented “the first change to the definition of a Federal record” since the Federal Records Act was passed in 1950. Similarly, it wasn’t until August 2013—six months after Clinton had left office—that the National Archives and Records Administration issued guidance making it clear that email records of some senior officials are permanent federal records.

But as the WLB and Leona Helmsley made clear..... laws are for little people.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

---

How does this website author know what his "real reason" is? How does the author know he has "no interest in complying" with federal records retention laws?

This author seems to be making some assumptions.

Considering you commented on that same website here and didn't have any problems with it, why take issue with it now?

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

[Joods]

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. 

Considering you commented on that same website here and didn't have any problems with it, why take issue with it now?

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.

---

Considering you commented on that same website here and didn't have any problems with it, why take issue with it now?

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.